Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< July 31	August 02 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:17, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Swear[edit]

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

Non notable band, no sources, almost no reference to the band online. WP:MUSIC   Kadzi   (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music.   Kadzi   (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:51, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with this momination. No news is available. Zeddedm (talk) 20:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Band is currently on tour with David Cook, just released a new album. Plenty of references online and all music is current. Songs have appeared on major TV shows. https://www.theswear.com/tour Lead singer has written hit songs and won major contests. 2601:483:4A80:6E00:48A5:D7C6:AD98:643A (talk) 22:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Being on tour doesn't make them notable. The link you gave doesn't say anything about them being on tour with David Cook, and even if they are, they don't inherit any notability from him per WP:NINHERITED. The band doesn't inherit notability from Elizabeth Elkins either (who doesn't have an article), but if two band members were independently notable that would be a pass of WP:BAND criterion #6. SpinningSpark 15:24, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Although the band have been around for a while, there appears to be no sognificant coverage about them. The article has no references, and I can find nothing that would establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 12:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Acquisourcing[edit]

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

WP:DICDEF article about a neologism that isn't even mentioned in the cited sources. I can't find any significant coverage of the term online, and thus falls short of WP:GNG. Redirecting to Acqui-hiring doesn't seem appropriate, as the only commonality is that they are portmanteaus about practices associated with business acquisitions, and "acquisourcing" is not mentioned in any capacity at Acqui-hiring. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:15, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:15, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nominator's rationale. I also failed to find usage of the term. Please ping me if good sources are identified. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:50, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, definitely not a notable term, fails WP:SIGCOV. No coverage of any kind found in reliable sources. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 00:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus which does not preclude a discussion on the talk about whether it's worth covering elsewhere. Otherwise no objection to a renomination if someone thinks more input is forthcoming. Star Mississippi 02:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Koogle[edit]

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

Referencing and notability issues. Andrevan@ 15:17, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I found [1] on search, along with various nostalgia blogs. I think it passes WP:NPRODUCT as a reasonable CFORK of Kraft. BrigadierG (talk) 16:34, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. This feels like a somewhat trivial mention. I think we need more. Andrevan@ 17:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Products. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Probably doesn't even rate a redirect to Kraft Foods. The nextweb source above is a bare mention, everything else is just blogs. valereee (talk) 14:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It gets short entries in From Abba to Zoom: A Pop Culture Encyclopedia of the Late 20th Century [2] and Creamy and Crunchy: An Informal History of Peanut Butter, the All-American Food [3]. I'm seeing a <amended>Consumer Reports article</amended> in a lot of bibliographies entitled "Koogle: Does it Pass the Peanut Butter Test?", for instance it is the reference to this passing mention, but I haven't found an online copy. It was clearly well known in the 1970s and heavily advertised on TV, but I suspect there is only material for a very short page available now, unless Kraft publish some of their primary source material revealing its history and why they took it off the market. SpinningSpark 15:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These all seem like passing trivial mentions. Andrevan@ 16:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An entry in an encyclopaedia under a headword is not a passing mention, even if short, because the entry is about that topic. In Wikipedia, we might call such entries stubs. The Consumer Reports article I referred to is definitely not a passing mention, it's just not online. One can't write a magazine article on a product and then only mention it. SpinningSpark 06:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Informal History seems like a passing mention, though, no? It's basically an entry on a timeline, the entirety of which, 2 sentences, reads: 1975 - Kraft introduces Koogle, the first commercial flavored peanut spread, in four flavors, cinnamon, banana, chocolate, and vanilla. Consumer Reports turns thumbs down, saying, "Nutrition and taste argue against buying Koogle." Based on that, do we really need to go find this Consumer Reports review? And yes the entry in Pop Culture Encyclopedia seems to indeed be a stub, which is kind of another way of saying trivial, it's also 2 sentences, verbatim is: "Peanut Butter Koogle with the goo goo googly eyes!" A Baby Boomer lunchtime favorite in the 1970s was the peanut butter spread in a jar with swirls of chocolate, banana, cinnamon, or strawberry jelly mixed in. I guess they liked it better than Consumer's. I still think this is a trivial mention - the "encyclopedia" itself is 560 pages, I think it's more of a pop coffee table book IMHO, not World Book or Britannica. It feels like a huge stretch to me still. Andrevan@ 07:04, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My vote was weak keep. It was weak for a reason. I already said in my initial post these entries were short. There is no need for you to carry on picking over it and creating a wall of text over something I already know and have already said. SpinningSpark 07:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rumpletilskinz[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage for the band and their only album. This is a double nomination with What Is a Rumpletilskin?. SL93 (talk) 23:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:23, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (both group and album). As a pre-Internet act they possibly received coverage in old hardcopy magazines, and if anyone can find something I might be persuaded to change my vote. But for now, I can find nothing reliable about the group's career overall, nor any confirmation that a couple of songs reached the Billboard rap chart. Their album has occasional online reviews of variable reliability, such as [4], [5]. They might have some more out there, but perhaps not enough to get over WP's significant coverage hurdle. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I didn't find any significant coverage that would lead me to believe they can pass WP:NBAND, WP:GNG, or any other notability guideline. Jacona (talk) 00:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:34, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reloliza Saimon[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 23:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:35, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Chloé Cahoon[edit]

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

Non-notable author and television reporter. Reads like a résumé. Not finding much in WP:BEFORE outside of fluff interviews, not seeing anything of note on Newspapers.com or Google News. Penale52 (talk) 20:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and Washington. Shellwood (talk) 20:40, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 23:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yogi Hari[edit]

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

Orphaned BLP lacking inline citations. F Adesdae 378 22:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The creator of the page has only made 4 edits, 3 of which where to this page. F Adesdae 378 22:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless he was an aviator, I don't find any sources. Oaktree b (talk) 22:50, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Hinduism, and India. Shellwood (talk) 22:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Source here in Hinduism Today[6], but I'm having trouble finding much of anything else.--Jahaza (talk) 01:35, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find any sources. Spudlace (talk) 19:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks sources fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:36, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ignatius Muzenda[edit]

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

BLP of a businessman whose main claim to fame is his distinguished parents, but notability is not inherited. There’s nothing really substantial here to support a stand alone bio, and nothing worth merging into the article about his father. Mccapra (talk) 20:28, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Zimbabwe. Mccapra (talk) 20:28, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 20:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

T. H. Properties[edit]

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

Minor house builder that went into Chapter 11. The other assertion of notability is otherwise feeble;

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 20:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 20:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Their financial problems in 2009 triggered some local coverage " Towns attempt to assist owners of THP homes" but neither that nor coverage of legal action around the Wynstone development, nor any other coverage demonstrates that the company (currently THP Homes) has attained notability. AllyD (talk) 11:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dcode[edit]

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

No indication of notability under WP:NCORP. Would be fine re-draftifying back to @Ahatd: draftspace, but there's only one source here that's definitely independent (TRT World). The TechBoiler and techtaalk were clearly just copied/rewritten from the same press release, and the PhoneWorld piece is an advertisement. Startup Pakistan has similar advertising/fluff issues. Alyo (chat·edits) 19:28, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Technology, and Pakistan. Alyo (chat·edits) 19:28, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I think Startup Pakistan is mirroring these "press releases" on Phone World and Propakistani, so not RS. But will disagree that pieces on techtaalk and techBioler are press releases, there's nothing I can find on internet being published with same or similar content, so can argue that techtaalk (published 28 Oct) copied techBioler's independent piece (published 25 oct). As far as this phone World's article is concerned, this doesn't look advertisement to me (specially due to ending comments by writer and site's history of mentioning "press releases" as in this case for very same dcode. Thanks AHatd (talk) 16:26, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with the techBoiler and techtaalk pieces is that they're almost identical to each other. Compare A new contender has stepped up in the smartphone market known as Dcode. The company is found in Pakistan with its manufacturing plant in Karachi. It is the first smartphone brand that is manufacturing flagship-level Android smartphones in Pakistan. to A new contender has stepped up in the smartphone market known as “Dcode”. The company is founded in Pakistan with its headquarters based in Karachi. It is Pakistan’s first homegrown smartphone brand that manufactures flagship-level Android phones locally. That's almost identical, just a couple words difference. If you go down the two pages, you see more of this: The phone is really modern looking. It resembles Samsung’s S20 Ultra from the back. Glass back and metal sides can be seen. versus The look of the phone is modern and it very much resembles Samsung S20 Ultra from the back side. This phone has a glass back and metal sides. They both probably got an info sheet and just published it "in their own words", especially since both say "Lets support Pakistani companies" at the end. And if one copied the other, that doesn't make it better. techtaalk is not a reliable source and has no editorial information or even author listed. As for PhoneWorld, there's a light grey "Advertisement" right under the first paragraph, and then again at the end of the piece. I'm assuming that refers to the piece, as there's no other advertisement that loads in those spots for me even without adblockers. Alyo (chat·edits) 16:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Like phoneWorld's article in the discussion, virtually each and every PhoneWorld article has that light grey "Advertisement" section thrice (at top, in body and at ending), like here and here. And as I already agreed that techtaalk copy/pasted techBioler opinion, so techtaalk can't be argued as WP:RS, but same is not true for techBioler. Thanks AHatd (talk) 19:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:09, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 20:15, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promotional Andre🚐 22:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chloé (Belgian singer)[edit]

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

I read the previous deletion discussion but I still do not believe this person meets the notability guidelines, so I have nominated it again. Sahaib (talk) 19:56, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I tried looking for sources but did not find much except: 1, 2, 3 and 4. Sahaib (talk) 20:10, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I guess she works for an airline now, per Linkedin. Nothing of substance found in French sources, I don't think she's charted or released any singles. Oaktree b (talk) 22:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I believe this article fails under WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 07:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Despite claims in the previous AfD that there were plenty of sources out there if people just looked, there has been absolutely no improvement in the article in 7 years [7], just formatting. She did not get the opportunity to represent her country (the notable endeavor) and now lives a normal life. The subject does not meet the criteria of WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO as stated above. Grk1011 (talk) 13:14, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cant find any sources to verify her notability.Obermallen (talk) 01:22, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Belgium. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:24, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all except for Ghar-e Rubah Minining Complex, Iran Engineerging Company, Iran Rubberworks, Qazvin-Rasht Road Construction Company, Unity Cooperative Company and Ziaran Meat Packing Company deleted via PROD and Defense Industry Complex, Isfahan and Natanz Steel Plant removed from nomination list and Nuclear Power Plant, Bushehr turned into a redirect. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agro-Industry Complex[edit]

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

Mass-created article made in violation of WP:MASSCREATE/WP:MEATBOT based on the 2006 Iranian census, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Carlossuarez46 for all the gory details. The Iranian census gathered data by whatever the closest named landmark was, including pumps, factories, farms, bridges, individual houses and so-forth. Carlossuarez46 apparently realised that something was wrong in this case based on the name, but decided that this (and every other case like it) was really a "company town" despite no source actually saying so. As such this fails WP:GEOLAND#1 since it is not really a legally-recognised populated place, but instead a factory of some kind that census-takers have used as a reference point. The real standard that should be applied here is WP:CORP as it is a company/organisation of some kind. This article obviously fails that standard, as there is no evidence even of a WP:GNG pass much less the kind of coverage needed to pass WP:AUD/WP:CORPDEPTH.

Together with this article I am also nominating the articles on the following list, all of which appear to have been hoax/spam articles created by Carlossuarez46 using the same template and sourcing, and which Carlos also added to the "Company towns in Iran" category. As such bundling is justified per WP:BUNDLE. In all cases, the appropriate standard is WP:CORP since they are really companies/institutions and they fail that standard.

Coverage in Wiki-like sources like Citypedia.ir, Tageo, Geonames or similar sources does not remedy this issue as they are unreliable. GEOnet Names Server is also unreliable for the purpose of establishing a WP:GEOLAND#1 pass per the RSN discussion. Similarly, use of company/institutional websites cannot sustain a WP:CORP pass, nor can coverage in local press, or WP:MILL coverage. Some of the articles are accompanied by co-ordinates but it is not clear where these co-ordinates were obtained from and they often do not point to a site that is built on, but even when they do it is impossible to know what they point to without engaging in WP:OR. Even if the co-ordinates do indicate a village, it is impossible to know whether the village is known by the name in the article.

The only exception are articles like Nuclear Power Plant, Bushehr which are about very notable topics . . . which are already covered entirely by other articles (e.g., Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant).

Complete list of 215 other Carlossuarez46 articles about "company towns".

Ab Barik Industrial Estate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Abadan Industrial Estate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Abdol Khani Oil Pumping Stations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Absard Rangeland Research Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Agro Emam Khormeyni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Agronomy Industry, Isfahan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ahvan Cultivation and Husbandry Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Airport Industrial Zone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ajarfajar Factory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ajorpazi Jajarm Integrated Furnace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ajorpazy Eshratabad Industrial Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Al Mahdi Aluminum Complex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ala Industrial Zone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Aliabad Brick Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Aliabad Industrial Estate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Aq Qala Industrial Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Aqdarband Coal Mine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Asphalt Plant, Khuzestan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Athad Now Brickworks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Avengan Industrial Estate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ayisar Gran Integrated Poultry Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Azadegan Industrial Works Complex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bahari Husbandry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Baluk Zeni Factory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bandar Abbas Industrial Estate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Barazan Industrial Plant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bardaskan Industrial Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bazneh Industrial Complex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Behaban Defense Complex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Behesht Qamsar Kashan Agricultural Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Brick Factory, Iranshahr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Brick Factory, Isfahan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Brickworks, Khorramabad, Qazvin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Brickworks, Semnan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Broadcasting Station, Abshar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Broadcasting Transmitters, Isin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Building Stone Factory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Building Stone Factory, Kurdistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bukan Integrated Livestock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bushehr Industrial Estate 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bushkan Water Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cement Cooperative, Urmia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chahar Bisheh District Poultry Facility (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chahar Bisheh Industrial Estate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cooperative Livestock Company, Ardestan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Damdari Dasht Livestock Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Damghan Jujeh Poultry Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dasht Luyin Integrated Agricultural Complex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dehraviyeh Poultry Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dobiran Water Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Doktor Yusefpur Fishery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dorudzan Dam Water Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Eslamabad Industrial Area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Eybakabad Industrial Estate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Eyvanki Industrial Estate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fahraj Brick Company Industrial Estate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fajr Industrial Estate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Faraman Industrial Estate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fars and Khuzestan Cement Plant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fazel Allah Khan Agrigultural Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Firuzkuh Industrial Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fruit and Vegetable Centre, Arak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gonabad Industrial Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gonbad-e Qabus Industrial Estate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hadayiq Culture and Industry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Haftuman Integrated Marble Quarry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hajj Hasan Nisi Pumping Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hajj Mohammadi Factory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hajji Shaban Brickworks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hajjiabad Industrial Estate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hajjiabad Integated Livestock Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hamaijan Industrial Estate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hasanabad Integrated Farm Town (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hashivar Livestock Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Heydari Poultry Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hofman Brickworks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hormozgan Steel Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hormozgan Water Treatment Complex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hoseyn Pump Complex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hydrometric Station, Farashband (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ilam Cement Plant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ilam Industrial Estate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Industrial Centre, Markazi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Industrial Cooperative Housing, Isfahan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Industrial Estate, Abbasabad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Industrial Estate, Amol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Industrial Estate, Behshahr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Industrial Estate, Borujen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Industrial Estate, Damghan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Industrial Estate, Jahrom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Industrial Estate, Kermanshah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Industrial Estate, Larestan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Industrial Estate, Larijan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Industrial Estate, West Azerbaijan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Industrial Estate, Yazd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Industrial Park, Shushtar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Iran Rubberworks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Iranshahr Industrial Complex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
IRIB Broadcasting Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Isfahan Airport Industries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jahanabad-e Meybod Industrial Estate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jalil Chenani Pumping Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jamaran Agro-Industry Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jannatabad Industrial Estate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jehad Rural Industrial Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jey Industrial Estate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kamard Industrial Complex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Karkhaneh-ye Maseh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Karun Agroindustry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kazerun Ceramic Tile Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kerman 2 Industrial Estate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kerman Cement Plant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kerman Factory Housing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Khalil-e Do Cooperative Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Khara Brickworks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kheyam Industrial Estate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Khorram Brickworks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Khorrambid Industrial Estate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kojur Industrial Estate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kupiteh Industrial Estate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kuroshabad Brick Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lar Pasta Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lia Industrial Complex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lushkan Brickworks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Macaroni Factory, Estahban (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Macaroni Factory, Jahrom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mahabad Industrial Estate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mahargan Brick Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mahshahr Large Integrated Livestock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mahshahr Radio Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Malayer Industrial Estate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Marvdasht Agricultural Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mashhad Factory Housing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mashhad Industrial Estate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Meybod Lime Kiln Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miandoab Industrial Estate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Milk and Meat Company, Isfahan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mohammad Taqiargha Industrial Estate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Molayem Soap Factory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Montazeriyeh Industrial Estate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nargesi Surveying Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Navheh Division (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Negarestan Research Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
New Lavark Meat Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Neyriz Integrated Quarry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nowruzi Mosaic Blocks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nuclear Power Plant, Bushehr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Oil and Gas Industry Complex, Isfahan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Oshnavieh Industrial Estate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pars Paper Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Persian Gulf Ship Building Complex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Petrochemical Staff Housing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Petrochemical Works, Shazand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Petrol Station, Fars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Plains Technology Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Portaladasht Lary Cooperative (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Poultry Company, Kharqan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Poultry Cooperative Number 7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Qand Torbat-e Jam Factory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Qand-e Naqsh-e Jahan Factory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Qarah Aqaj Sand Quarry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Qazvin-Rasht Road Construction Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Qods Brick Factory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Qorveh Industrial Estate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Quchan Industrial Estate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rafsanjan Cement Factory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rajabi Kia Poultry Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ramazan Poultry Cooperative Number 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ravansar Industrial Estate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rayhan Agricultural Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Riz Poultry Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rotating Machine Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Saady Gardens and Farms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Saba Poultry Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sanandaj Industrial Estate Number 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sanandaj-e Do Industrial Estate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sand Mining Complex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sang-e Bariha Industrial Complex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Saqqez Industrial Estate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sardegal Integrated Farming Industry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sefid Marmar Plaster Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sefid Shomareh Yek Meat Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Semnan New Poultry Cooperative (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Semnan Slaughterhouse Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sepahan Factory Town Complex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sepidan Flour Mill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Shahid Beheshti Agro-Industrial Complex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Shahid Darvishi Defense Complex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Shahid Rajai construction site (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Shahid Reza Khosrowi Livestock Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Shahpurabad Industrial Area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Shahreza Industrial Complex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Shahrud Cement Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Shahrud Industrial Estate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Shahrud Integrated Farming Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Shal Brick Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Shiraz Industrial Estate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Shiraz Refinery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sodium Carbonate Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sugar Factory, Shahrekord (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tarkesh Coffee Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Technology Industrial Centre of Mahallat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tirsazi Power Plant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tomato Paste Plant, Aladagh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tus Industrial Estate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Unity Cooperative Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vashyeng Agricultural Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
West Cement Plant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yazd Industrial Estate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Zarach Integrated Industrial Complex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Zayandeh Rud Dam Complex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Zeydun Road Farm Complex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ziaran Meat Packing Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(PS - these will all be templated with AWB soon) FOARP (talk) 18:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. FOARP (talk) 18:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Procedural close~~: WP:TRAINWRECK. It is impossible to conduct any semblance of a deletion discussion with a nomination of 216 (!) articles. This needs to be broken up into much smaller bundles. Curbon7 (talk) 18:54, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do concur that it is more likely than not that they'll all be deleted, so this isn't as strong a trainwreck as, say WP:Articles for deletion/Mayoral elections. Curbon7 (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: I'm skittish to delete 216 articles without taking a look at more than just a few, but I don't want to let procedure get in the way of deleting obviously non-notable articles. Curbon7 (talk) 18:11, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most. Which is to say, delete all if they remain in their current state. If later contributions to this AfD individually identify some of them as having specifically identified additional sources that might plausibly cause them to meet WP:NCORP, then those ones can be kept or separately discussed. Do not break up the AfD into smaller bundles; in their current state, these are all much the same: geostubs, badly created by misinterpreting a database, and in need of either individual attention or deletion. There's no point in making AfD participants repeat the same opinion on them until they are no longer the same as each other. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:15, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete all If someone identifies individual articles which have been expanded into something with adequate sourcing, fine, they can be kept if they pass GNG thereby. A check of some of fifteen of the more promising names produced only Natanz Steel Plant as having been expanded with sources, so it should be removed from this list and considered separately. The rest should be deleted as we have done so with the other mass-entered Iran census articles. Mangoe (talk) 19:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per David Eppstein. We can’t spend the next decade sifting through all this junk. If any individual articles deserve to be pulled out and saved, great. Otherwise the sooner we get rid of this detritus the better. Mccapra (talk) 19:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as the easiest, most straight forward way to deal with this mess. Yilloslime (talk) 20:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural comment Most of these pages have not been tagged. I have unilaterally redirected Nuclear Power Plant, Bushehr to Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, we do not need to keep these "articles" around any longer with pointless bureaucracy. These are all the same article with the names and numbers scrambled. If one is greenlit to go, all of them should be. —VersaceSpace 🌃 01:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural comment I have run AWB to tag all the pages except for Nuclear Power Plant, Bushehr since it has been redirected. I also note that VersaceSpace had prodded the following pages on 26 July 2022:
- Iran Rubberworks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Qazvin-Rasht Road Construction Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Unity Cooperative Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Ziaran Meat Packing Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- I have left the prod template up since it wasn't contested. I leave it to other editors to decide to de-prod them or have these articles deleted (since it is close to the 7 days for prods). – robertsky (talk) 01:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I recalled also Ghar-e Rubah Minining Complex and Iran Engineerging Company — notice also that these were misspelled. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I came here for Defense Industry Complex, Isfahan which was also a page PRODed by VersaceSpace. The deprod was requested by Maometto97 a month back, which I accepted. The user then added more refs. If it needs a discussion, I would like it to be a separate AfD, and not bundled with this. Jay 02:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Happy to strike Natanz Steel, Bushehr Nuclear, and Defense Industry Complex, Isfahan from the list. I had reviewed Natanz steel and wasn’t sure the sourcing was a WP:CORP pass, but the strike coverage looks fairly notable. For the Defense Industry Complex in Isfahan, I do wonder how they know that the town they are talking about is the same thing as the generically-named industry complex. FOARP (talk) 06:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Defense Industry Complex in Isfahan: From the RfU request, I saw that the editor was connected to the place and stayed there for 5+ years. And I had suggested to add more reliable sources. Jay 13:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jay - RE: Defense Industry Complex, Isfahan, having looked at the sourcing, it looks like the only reliable sources are reports of the same incident in which “martyrs” were buried there. It’s not really Sigcov of anything, neither the factories that are there for WP:Corps, nor the town for WP:GNG, nor proof of legal recognition for a WP:Geoland#1 pass. I’m happy to discuss separately but my !vote would still be delete. FOARP (talk) 15:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all and start from scratch if there is anything worth the effort. Fad Ariff (talk) 11:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, I've seen many of these articles and I've questioned the quality and notability of them. Seems easiest to just start from scratch at this point. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I checked a large amount of them and also thoroughly read the nomination rationale and agree with and reiterate every point of it. Also, GNG is not established and the SNG specifically excludes entities invented by census-taking processes. North8000 (talk) 18:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I didn't see any that has real sources and a real article. If anyone comes up with such they can be (re)created. North8000 (talk) 18:51, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:V. Even if these do actually exist as populated places, we don't have any reliable sources to verify that fact, and the burden of proof is on those who want to keep the content. And frankly given the very small amount of content in each it would be easier to start again with the ones that do exist. Hut 8.5 17:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom Avilich (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet requirements of WP:CORP. Gusfriend (talk) 09:36, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Place of safety[edit]

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

This is a very niche and specific construct of English law which could be summarised under Mental Health Act 1983 rather than its own article which may appear confusing to people not from England.   Kadzi   (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and England.   Kadzi   (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's a very niche aspect of the Mental Health Act 1983 that is of crucial importance to people in mental health crisis. — The Anome (talk) 23:18, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or summarize under the Mental Health Act article. Oaktree b (talk) 22:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; by all means re-name/move to a name that indicates the term is being used within English law. The nomination combines two ideas: that the article is a narrow feature of law, and that it's confusing because it relates only to English law. Neither of these is appropriate: firstly Wikipedia has never shied away from articles about specific aspects of law, provided they're notable. Usually we include legal things if they are either important socially, or important legally (established precedents etc.). This one is about the right of the police to detain anyone apparently acting in a mentally-disordered way, which is of huge social relevance and widely written-about, so it's notable. Secondly, while the UK represents only a small part of the English speaking world, it is not yet such a fringe interest that it can be excluded from WP merely on the grounds it might confuse someone from the US. The world is a big place; we have to trust our readers to have some intelligence. Elemimele (talk) 07:35, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dial-the-Truth Ministries[edit]

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

Sources are WP:PRIMARY or promotional in tone. No better sources found. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Websites. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on nom's reason. If the reason is sources, consider that there are 3 secondary sources that are academic in nature (from reputable academic authors, such as David Gauntlett) and are, in fact, relatively neutral, primarily using this group as an example of a specific sub-culture. Also, the use of the primary sources here is WP:PRIMARY #3 - stating a fact about what they believe (which, I'd argue, sounds far more conspiratorial/fringe than promotional to me). ButlerBlog (talk) 15:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The first secondary source is a passing mention ("According to Terry Watkins, head of Dial-the-Truth Ministries [unrelated claim]"). The second secondary source, at best, provides one sentence of coverage on the subject. I can't access the third secondary source, but given the context it seems likely to be another passing mention and one source can't singlehandedly make an article notable anyway. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pppery. Andrevan@ 02:35, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NORG because Barnet and Gauntlett both are passing mentions. I have found other mentions in books like The Oxford Handbook of the Bible in America (2017) and in Contextualization in the context of mainstream 'rock' music listeners (2005), but these too are passing mentions. SWinxy (talk) 19:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby C. Baker[edit]

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

Fails notability criteria WP:BLP, none of the references meet the criteria for notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Medicine. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:26, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doctor doing his job. Appears to have gotten a 25 yr pin from the radiation society, not much beyond that. Only 4 hits in GScholar. Oaktree b (talk) 15:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am leaning towards Keep because it seems to me Baker meets Criterium 3 or WP:NPROF (membership of a fellowship). The award may also signal meeting criterium 7 - substantial impact outside academia in an academic capacity for founding the Maui Hawaii's only cancer treatment center in 1993. JamesKH76 (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Fellowship in such medical-related societies is a senior membership level that you apply for yourself, not the same as a Fellow of American academic societies. Baker is a practicing radiation oncologist and administrator not an academic, so NPROF does not apply. However there may be sources for meeting the GNG. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just added a section on a lawsuit brought against him for being involved in the death of a patient with a radiation overdose. This constitutes at least one independent published reliable source about him, and brings him over the threshold of notability, in my opinion. A loose necktie (talk) 12:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The lawsuit was brought primarily against the Institute where Baker is the President and also against Baker and another doctor. The lawsuit was settled with the Institute paying $13.5m and each of the doctors settling for $1m each which was the maximum of their insurance policies. It wasn't a criminal offense but when we look at WP:PERP or any other policy/guideline/essay, there's nothing to suggest that being involved in a civil and settled and unremarkable lawsuit establishes notability. In addition, Baker only gets a mere mention (and a quote), there's nothing about that article which meets the criteria for establishing his notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient independent coverage, nowhere near SIGCOV territory atm. I would have be inclined to vote keep anyway had he founded the first cancer treatment center in Hawaii, but it seems he founded the first radiation treatment center for cancer, in Maui. Draken Bowser (talk) 01:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet any NPROF criteria, so instead would need to be assessed through GNG, which also appears to be failed through lack of SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 21:24, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet GNG nor NPROF per above. Femke (talk) 16:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SwissWatchExpo[edit]

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

None of the references meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability, the references are puff profiles which rely on interviews with the founder and/or company announcements. No "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND. In addition and not unconnected, article creator has been indef blocked for advertising/promotion. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Georgia (U.S. state). HighKing⁺⁺ 15:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional article. Sources used are a bit of a stretch ("where to buy the best watches" and the like.) The Spanish GQ article seems iffy as well. Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Promotional article, fails notability. Alex-h (talk) 15:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I didn't find any sources that would make me believe it should pass any notability guideline. Jacona (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ex Cathedra (film)[edit]

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

Note - please also see AfD on Liam Andrew Wright - director of this film who also is up for discussion and Banter Media, company by the same.

This film has no relevant sources on my searches on Google or elsewhere and the two references show that this was pretty much a university project that was never released in cinemas? Reads like an advertisement. Fails GNG with non reliable independent sources and 0 coverage.   Kadzi   (talk) 13:58, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   Kadzi   (talk) 13:58, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The film is obscure, and I couldn't find any coverage (it also lacks an Rotten Tomatoes page), there's another subject of the same name, but this 2009 film is non-notable. It has only 14 ratings on IMDB, and apparently there was an entry from the British Film Magazine, only it couldn't be opened; the only other ref is the company's non indepedent about page. Otherwise, this doesn't meet GNG or Wikipedia:Notability (film), I support deletion per nom, and the keep vote is unconvincing. VickKiang (talk) 03:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and VickKiang + the sole source appears to be a personal blog (see its about page). QuietHere (talk) 16:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am the director of the film in question so my vote probably won't be counted but my arguments are listed above regardless. 0xCryptoDegen (talk) 14:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1172052/ - IMDB listing

https://www.amazon.com/Ex-Cathedra-Richard-Massara/dp/B09HJC8FCY - Amazon Video listing

The film was an indie film created between 2008-2009 in a world where many of the original sources are from websites that are no longer around or cached by WayBackMachine. Honestly, I believe Kadzi has it in for me for some reason. I understand there is a valid debate but the film has been around since 2009 and this page was made in 2010 - what is the rationale for deletion now given that it was deemed notable enough for IMDB (which had strict guidelines at least in 2009) and is available in the commercial market? 0xCryptoDegen (talk) 13:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. IMDb is, at best, a routine database. Inclusion there just requires that you give them some proof that the film, role, or person exists in some form or fashion. They're also not the best when it comes to verifying said proof, as we've had cases of people adding listings for fake shows, films, and even roles. My whole reason for mentioning that is just to explain why the site isn't seen as a sign of notability and can't even really be used to back up basic claims. At most it can be a jumping off point for further research. The Amazon listing is also considered to be routine, as generally speaking, almost anyone can upload films for purchase/streaming. I'm aware there's a bit more to it than that, but it's not a sign of notability. It just shows that it exists and can be viewed. Finally, as far as other sourcing goes, sourcing doesn't have to be online but it does have to be verifiable and in places Wikipedia would see as independent, reliable sourcing that goes into depth on the topic. Examples of this would be reviews in newspapers or websites such as DVD Talk, as well as articles written about the film. Awards can sometimes count towards notability, but would have to be from notable award granting institutions, as not all awards are major enough to give partial or total notability.

As far as notability guidelines go, they've gotten stricter over the years. To be honest, most guidelines only required proof of existence to pass notability guidelines. This quickly became unwieldy, as a lot of people began to use the site to promote stuff that was extremely non-notable. Think in terms of self-published books through iUniverse and YouTube movies shot on a cell phone by a couple of bored people in their backyard, stuff that hasn't gained any coverage at all. So the criteria got more selective in order to weed those out. It unfortunately also resulted in a lot of indie films failing notability guidelines as well. The guidelines are likely only going to become more selective as time goes by as well, as there just aren't enough editors to keep up with everything. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was not the case in 2009. There was a lot of hoops to jump through back then. There were reviews and commentary back in 2009 when the internet was based around blog sites. Many of which are no longer available and were not cached by WayBackMachine. This article has been around since 2010 but today, after I attempted to write a Wikipedia article related to crypto it is now being targeted for deletion? My respect for Wikipedia has taken a big hit today. I saw it as maintaining the digital history of the internet. I know this post won't help my case but it is true. The film was not shot on an iPhone and uploaded to YouTube. It was selected to a world renown film festival (which no longer has records from the time online) and the wiki article has been updated countless times by the community over the past 10 years but today it is now not notable enough and will be deleted? Ok. It is what it is. I know nothing I say will change that now. 0xCryptoDegen (talk) 14:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have screenshots/clippings of the reviews and coverage? If you can show them, then we can look at them and see if they would be seen as reliable sources. The coverage doesn't have to be online, it just has to be independent of the film and cast/crew, in-depth, and in a place Wikipedia would see as reliable - even if it doesn't exist any longer. For example, DVD Verdict is no longer online as they went defunct in 2017, but reviews from their site would still be seen as a reliable source. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:41, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any WP:SIGCOV. Jacona (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Andrew Wright[edit]

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

Note - this person is linked to Banter Media and Ex Cathedra (film) and is named on those two pages (which I will also AfD)

This page gives seemingly impressionable/notable feats however on a deeper trawl the majority of the accomplishments listed on this page are either unreferences or first hand sources. The majority of the references link to this persons twitter page, cryptoslate (to which he is affiliated), bantermedia (to which he is affiliated) or youtube - there are no reliable sources here; reference no6 appears to be a promotional news article.

The Ex Cathedra film linked to this person (to which he is director) has no sources that I have been able to find that show its notability and the only reference shows that it appears to be more of a university project than an actual released film. Fails GNG with non reliable independent sources and 0 coverage,   Kadzi   (talk) 13:58, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.   Kadzi   (talk) 13:58, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but this page has been live since 2010 and now you feel it should be deleted after you declined the CryptoSlate article? Sorry but this feels like an attack on crypto from a reviewer who is failing to be neutral. You can watch Ex Cathedra on Amazon Video right now -https://www.amazon.com/Ex-Cathedra-Richard-Massara/dp/B09HJC8FCY - several sources are from 2009-2010 before WayBackMachine was as good as it is today and thus some references got lost in time.

This was by no means a University project and had no association with any educational establishment. The film is listed on IMDB https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1172052/ and has been since is launch at Santa Barbarra International Film festival in 2009. 0xCryptoDegen (talk) 13:06, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. QuietHere (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am the individual in question so my vote probably won't be counted but my arguments are listed above regardless. 0xCryptoDegen (talk) 14:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - evidently self-promotion. Deb (talk) 09:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with all above, many refs but not much substantive coverage. Crypto position is neither here nor there. Oaktree b (talk) 18:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trax Credit Union[edit]

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

I don't think this meets WP:NCORP, at least based off what I was able to find. There's also only nine locations, so it might be hard to find sources because of that (which would again point towards to the direction of not meeting Wikipedia notability guidelines). It's possible I'm not looking in the right places, though. The article as-is reminds me about those ads you'll see on TV for a product or service "we won an award you've never heard of, ranked # whatever on this list, etc" kind of thing. But I've never lived anywhere near Florida so maybe these listed awards are more important than they sound and what I've been able to find. Clovermoss (talk) 11:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, United States of America, and Florida. Clovermoss (talk) 11:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: FWIW, Trax is by far the smallest credit union listed in Category:Credit unions based in Florida. While size in itself is not a criteria for notability, I think that the smaller a credit union is, the less likely it is that significant coverage exists in reliable sources. - Donald Albury 14:01, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Search Comment. For roughly 86/87 years, (almost all of this organizations existence), it has been known as Railroad & Industrial Federal Credit Union. Searches using Trax will find only the most very recent references. Jacona (talk) 11:43, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jacona: Thanks for bringing this up, that's an important point. I should've brought this up in the nom because that's an important part of trying to find sources. The main reason I saw the article was because of the page move to the new title. I did try searching for sources for the other title, but didn't really find enough to pass WP:NCORP. Maybe I'm not looking in the right places though. Not every source is nessecarily online, especially for older companies like this. Clovermoss (talk) 14:54, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm using "Railroad & Industrial" FCU -Trax and Railroad & Industrial Federal Credit Union -Trax in Google to remove any news items discussing the name change. There's also the former website through Internet Archive here. – The Grid (talk) 14:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for those tips The Grid. I was using for the quotation marks for the old company name, but not the - to get rid of sources that are simply about the name change. I found this [8] but it's a press release. I looked through pretty much all the other results and they're pretty much directory-based. Are you seeing something I'm not or just giving search tips? I appreciate them, by the way. Clovermoss (talk) 18:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just giving search tips for potentially hoping for someone to find something. I couldn't really find anything. – The Grid (talk) 18:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chess at the 2022 ASEAN Para Games[edit]

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

Draftify this unfinished article. To be fair it's hardly started, let alone unfinished. Disputed Draftification. This needs a great deal of work before it's ready to exist in main space 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as suggested; no point in having an incomplete article, an empty table, with no information, in main-space, but presumably whoever wrote it intends to fill in the table etc. Elemimele (talk) 07:17, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and make sure it stays draftified. It has already been moved back to mainspace twice, even when I told the creator not to move it until it was properly sourced and developed [9]. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 06:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It has now been populated, but without substantive independent referencing. This remains incomplete, unacceptably so 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:33, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. I nominated it, and I'm withdrawing my nomination. We'll talk about the article's name on the talkpage because the name does not seem to cover the subject of the article. (non-admin closure) Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 13:36, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All good things come together[edit]

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

The article does not cite any source, and a WP:BEFORE shows nothing tangible. I proposed for deletion, but it was decline. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 16:54, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 16:54, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It was declined because I did a BEFORE and found some relevant sources. See my comments at Talk:All good things come together#Removal of proposed deletion. The nominator has chosen not to respond to that either on the talk page or in his nomination. This is the laziest AFD I have seen all week – going straight to a deletion without analysing potential sources or taking part in a discussion.
As I said on the talk page, this was not just a throw away expression. Rather, it is the title (badly translated) of a major work by the philosopher in question. This work is discussed in numerous reliable sources; just one more in addition to those already on the talk page is Hock-Tong Cheu, Chinese Beliefs and Practices in Southeast Asia [10]. SpinningSpark 13:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Spinningspark, I'd be lying if I say I saw your comments on the articles talk page, I wouldn't have nominated. I'm withdrawing the nomination and closing. Let's talk about the name on the talk page. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 13:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Femke (talk) 16:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mission sui juris of I-li[edit]

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

Reason: Does not have any sources AAAAA143222 (talk) 15:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and China. Shellwood (talk) 17:08, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The page lists sources, including Joseph de Moidrey, La hiérarchie catholique en Chine, en Corée et au Japon (1307–1914). The page has had these sources since @Arcarius added them in 2017.--Jahaza (talk) 01:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No good reason for deletion. Had sources when it was nominated, so the claim is patently false. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:CSK#1: no valid rationale for deletion has been given. BilletsMauves^€500 18:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has reliable sources book coverage as mentioned above, Atlantic306 (talk) 16:58, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 16:37, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fwrd Axis News[edit]

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

No evidence found of any notability for this site. Sources are either affiliated with the site and their partners, or not about the site. No better sources found with an online search. Fram (talk) 16:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Websites, and United States of America. Fram (talk) 16:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of any significant coverage from reliable sources. —Natalie RicciNatalie 09:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's a dearth of WP:SECONDARY WP:RS, I don't see any way this can meet WP:NCORP. Jacona (talk) 21:40, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable at this time because no WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. The publisher is not notable either. gidonb (talk) 20:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. Eagles 24/7 (C) 12:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Simon (American football)[edit]

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

No indication of why the subject is notable. Only one citation is in the article, and it gives no explanation for what makes Brown unique or noteworthy. Nightscream (talk) 15:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and Pennsylvania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, they've played in 82 NFL games, they pass WP:NGRIDIRON Hey man im josh (talk) 20:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NGRIDIRON requires"multiple published non-trivial" sources. The article does not have this. Nightscream (talk) 20:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can't vote when you're the nominator. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on [11][12][13]. Worth noting that although NGRIDIRON does not exist any more as a separate guideline, NFL players with as much experience as Simon are virtually always notable. Hatman31 (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These nominations are getting ridiculous. Simon played EIGHTY-TWO games in the NFL and was a starter for multiple seasons. And, like 99% of other NFL players, Simon easily meets GNG, see here, here, here, here, and here. They even made football cards of him! BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Played 80 NFL games. Undoubtedly notable due to having played several seasons in the NFL. Poor nomination rationale and should have sought better sources, not deletion. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 22:08, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per the above. The fact that the nominator couldn't even get th name right is one of many indications that WP:BEFORE was not followed. If we all weren't so distracted with nominations like this we might actually be able to improve the encyclopedia. St Anselm (talk) 22:20, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NGRIDIRON, WP:GNG, and WP:BASIC, per the sources found by Hatman31 and BeanieFan11. Total failure of WP:BEFORE on the part of the nominator. Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:22, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 16:37, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ye Ali[edit]

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

Notability isn't transferable, doesn't matter who he's performed with Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 15:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete no indication of notability per WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. --bonadea contributions talk 17:20, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rupert Clague[edit]

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

Does not meet notability criteria, written like a CV with links that do not meet Wikipedia criteria Trumplives46 (talk) 14:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 15:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination comes from an SPA, as such we need to treat it with caution but that doesn't mean that we automatically reject it. Let's see what we find... First up, the article has a conversational unencyclopaedic tone. That's never a good sign but it is fixable if there is notability. At least the Copyvio detector doesn't turn up any plagiarism. "Clague has worked on documentaries all over the world..." is followed by links to a lot of notable programmes and documentaries but they don't link back. What was his actual involvement? It wasn't nothing but most of the time it wasn't pivotal either. Then we get on to documentaries that he actually directed. That's better. Or is it? None of those seem to have articles. So what have we got? IMDB offers a good way to look at it. He produced some episodes of TV shows. He directed some stuff but it is mostly non-notable shorts and segments. ("Pawsea" is only 4 mins long.) There are a couple of award nominations but they don't seem to confer notability. The fundamental problem is that the article tries to inherit notability from his involvement with more notable people and projects but that's not how notability works. The only really good independent reference is the Ham & High. It is RS and it is actually about Clague. Is it good enough though? Not really. It's a local paper writing about a local person. It would be fine alongside other good sources but it can't take the weight of the article alone. The CBC article helps a little but only a little as he is not the main focus. The IOM Today piece is about him but only about him trying to crowdfund. The Battle of Ideas Festival reference is not great. It seems to be some sort of "free speech festival" (yawn). That said, I don't see any reason to doubt its basic biographical details about their speakers although clearly it is trying to big them up as much as it can. It is probably OK for verification but confers no notability. So, last gasp, maybe the article is just poorly written? Maybe there is more RS out there? Fortunately his name is very distinctive and it is easy to Google. Unfortunately it doesn't turn up much. There is this interview and that's about it. I came here expecting this to be a speedy keep and its actually a weak delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielRigal (talk • contribs)
Delete Agree with above explanation, I can't find much for sourcing. Same ones that turn up for the article. Oaktree b (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May not be important, however Trumplives76, when listing Rupert Clague for deletion, deleted much of the page. This has not happened in the current revision of the page, as I write this. This caused multiple reverts by myself and other editors, so may have problems under 3RR. JML1148 (talk) 08:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Self-admitted paid promotion (the article and its sources, apparently). Sandstein 15:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bole festival[edit]

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

Subject article fails WP:GNG because they seems like a promotional press about the event coming up to entertain and also lack significant coverage. Article also seems fishy looking like a paid job from the way it was written . Subject article also fails WP:EVENTCRIT in terms of No.1 . Articles is a Too soon and should be delete because Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought Gabriel^t@lk 14:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Entertainment, and Events. Gabriel^t@lk 14:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ — according to the policy, before nominating an article for deletion, you are required to make a WP:BEFORE. I have done so and I have found multiple sources supporting proving the notability of this event.
Editor (21 July 2019). "Bole Festival set for August 3". The Guardian. {{cite news}}: |last= has generic name (help)
Sesan (19 July 2019). "Port Harcourt hosts boli festival". The Punch.
"Bole Festival: The Biggest Food Festival From The Heart Of The South". Vanguard. 10 July 2019.

I could go on and on and on. For now, we have WP:THREE. Best, R E A D I N G ^{Talk to the Beans?} 11:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Thank You Reading Beans for saving my article. Actually I’m a journalist and close friend to the Founder of Bole festival. We actually had a promised from our co-partner “CIOUSNET” that our Wikipedia has been verified and can never be deleted because we paid him for the service and news content which he said to be eligible. We are trying to reach “CIOUSNET” but his not picking please how do we email you. We have an upcoming show and we need the Wikipedia to be professionally look good.--Bolejournalist (talk) 22:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bolejournalist, that is to say, the page was created by a paid user. Please see {{UPE}} and {{COI}}. If this page is to survive (which I now doubt), request for edits on the talk page of the article here. Best, R E A D I N G ^{Talk to the Beans?} 09:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is completely against Wikipedia policy to pay someone to make a page, unless they disclose their association, in which case they cannot just post the page, they need to submit it for admin review via WP:AFC. CIOUSNET is in violations of Wikipedia policy. Zeddedm (talk) 06:10, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Bolejournalist Wikipedia is not a site for promotion or where editors are being paid to help brand a particular brand or event. Also why then pay for press articles if your events are notable.--Gabriel^t@lk 09:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - all articles appear to be PR and was admitted by Bolejournalist above that a paid editor was hired who did PR.Zeddedm (talk) 06:20, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:33, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lexico (programming language)[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. I cannot find a single secondary source about the programming language, and it appears obscure to professionals in the field - I was hoping to find a mention at [14] but did not, ending up referring to a programming language called Latino instead. The language gets a mention at a list of programming languages [15] but no significant coverage.

Note recent failed prod here and related discussion here and here. Darcyisverycute (talk) 13:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Darcyisverycute (talk) 13:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article has been here for more than 10 years with no serious improvement. Unless this deletion discussion leads to improvement, it should be deleted. --Bduke (talk) 08:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a good deletion rationale. See WP:NOTCLEANUP and WP:NODEADLINES. ~Kvng (talk) 21:56, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If I had said "Unless this deletion discussion leads to the finding of secondary sources, it should be deleted" would that have been OK?" That is the improvement I was referring to. --Bduke (talk) 00:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's fine. Thanks for clarifying. ~Kvng (talk) 13:18, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Found a link here and it looks like the language has not been updated for over a decade. I think we can consider it defunct. Also note that searching today is difficult because the word "lexico" is used for an online dictionary, and that is what floods the search. Lamona (talk) 16:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Already deleted by Bbb23 under CSD WP:G5 SpinningSpark 22:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Firoz chaudhary[edit]

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

The subject of this nomination has repeatedly been declined at AfC and does not appear to meet either general notability or notability for musicians. The article creator had previously posted it at Firoz Chaudhary (Singer), then moved that page to draftspace under a different name after it went to AfD and posted this version with a different capitalization of the name. PohranicniStraze (talk) 13:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete... and do whatever is necessary to prevent re-creation in either Mainspace or Draft. Multiple dogged attempts to get this singer onto Wikipedia with shifty article titles indicates a promotional effort, or at least an overzealous fan. As for the singer himself, it might simply be WP:TOOSOON because he is just getting started. He may have a couple of industry awards but his victories did not receive reliable media notice, and otherwise he is only visible in shameless puff pieces (e.g. [16]) and basic industry directories. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:55, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the nominator stated and I do agree with Doomsdayer520. Not enouth verifialbe reliable sources. --Bigneeerman (talk) 14:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with above. No notable sources. Oaktree b (talk) 14:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt, non-notable and block evasion, see Firoz Chaudhary, User talk:Firoz Chaudhary, and User talk:Sana543. Storchy (talk) 16:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non notable singer. I can't find any sources which makes him/her notable. Poppified ^talk 17:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the Yorkpedia 'article' is clearly a press release and there is nothing else available other than the usual self-published garbage. Clear WP:NMUSICIAN fail. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - No better sourcing found. Article creator has moved the article back to draftspace, just as they did when Firoz Chaudhary (Singer) was similarly nominated. With Firoz Chaudhary already being salted, it's time to take stronger measures against the shenanigans. --Finngall ^talk 13:01, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt: Delete and spread a liberal helping of salt over every title that this rubbish has been created at. Just another non-notable musician desperately trying to create a new type of 'social media profile', by any means necessary. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 07:49, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Kilmeena GAA. Sandstein 15:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kilmeena GFC[edit]

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

Delete: This page is about the same club of article Kilmeena GAA. Mind you neither seem to be notable having had little added since 2015. ww2censor (talk) 13:26, 1 August 2022

Delete Duplicate article. The article it duplicates is equally bad - the collective noun might be a "despair of stubs" :) Sarah777 (talk) 14:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Ireland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:20, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Eh... Just change to a redirect surely? Guliolopez (talk) 22:50, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect also works. Sarah777 (talk) 11:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Duplicate article, albeit with less content, of Kilmeena GFC. In my opinion, a redirect should be fine. Fats40boy11 (talk) 09:21, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Woes[edit]

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

I'm not finding enough coverage on this band to indicate notability. I added source 1, a review of one of their albums. Source 2 is an interview so isn't much good. I used dated searches and looked for info on their albums and frontman. But reviews and other reporting seems very thin on the ground.

Taking to AfD rather than PRODing in case anyone can come up with some great sources that I couldn't find. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 12:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, United States of America, and New York. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 12:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable per WP:NMUSIC --Bigneeerman (talk) 14:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources found, only articles about general woes of society and the like. Oaktree b (talk) 18:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC.—Natalie RicciNatalie 09:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NBAND, WP:GNG Jacona (talk) 21:43, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Supriya Kumari[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG PravinGanechari (talk) 12:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. PravinGanechari (talk) 12:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and India. Shellwood (talk) 12:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Forgotten Realms#2000–2008. Sandstein 15:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Forgotten Realms Deluxe Edition[edit]

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

Doesn't pass notability per WP:PRODUCT. Mika1h (talk) 12:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Dungeons & Dragons video games per WP:ATD. However, doesn't appear standalone notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems actually to be a list article of notable entries, which is fine per WP:CSC. I agree, as an article, there's simply not much there, but the article also doesn't even suggest there was new content. Jclemens (talk) 15:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Dungeons & Dragons video games, where it is already listed. It is merely a compilation of previously released games, with no actual sources or indication that it is, itself, a notable compilation. I'm also finding almost nothing on this collection on searches - the best I've found is a few "for sale" sites and a few entries in databases. I'm finding no actual coverage of the compilation itself. Rorshacma (talk) 16:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Dungeons & Dragons video games per previous votes. This article fails WP:GNG. I'm confused on WP:CSC, since it doesn't seem to meet the selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources per the CSC page, so WP:LISTN is failed. No any other notability criteria, such as WP:PRODUCT, are met at all, with currently no refs (nor other any ones I can find on Google, Books, Scholar, News); though, WP:ATD is sensible IMO, but there's nothing much to preserve here. VickKiang (talk) 03:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What part is ambiguous, subjective, or not supported by reliable sources? The bundle includes other published products, and its documentation is sufficiently reliable per WP:ABOUTSELF. In the absence of controversy, why would we need anything beyond the product's description to verify what's in it? Jclemens (talk) 03:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am curious, but how do you think this is met by WP:GNG? With no refs whatsoever, I don't understand why this article should be considered notable as it doesn't have any refs. You said that [in] the absence of controversy, why would we need anything beyond the product's description to verify what's in it?, this may be true if it's in an article with some refs, but with no refs at all, IMHO I strongly disagree with your keep vote. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 09:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's probably very mundane, but if so, why should an article be needed, per [in] the absence of controversy, why would we need anything beyond the product's description to verify what's in it? Thanks! VickKiang (talk) 09:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Forgotten Realms#2000–2008, this section contains no less information about the games inside this compilation than the current article. Do not redirect it to List of Dungeons & Dragons video games, because it provides no information about this compilation. -Vipz (talk) 04:52, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would be fine with using this as the Redirect target as well. Rorshacma (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lucilia nitens[edit]

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

This disambiguation page appears to have been created purely based on the fact that "Lucilia nitens" was originally listed at both Lucilia (fly) and Lucilia (plant). However, on closer inspection, it turns out that the former article had erroneously listed a number of plant species, one of which was "Lucilia nitens Less.". Thus the basis for this disambiguation page completely disintegrates. (This is apart from the fact that nobody had ever tried to create either species articles, so it's no wonder this error went by unnoticed) Monster Iestyn (talk) 12:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this could be G14'ed as a dab page that does not disambiguate any article - both entries are redlinks without meeting WP:DABRED. MB 21:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I had considered speedy delete under G14, but wasn't sure if "Regardless of title, disambiguation pages that disambiguate zero extant Wikipedia pages" (from WP:G14) covered a disambiguation page consisting entirely of redlinks or not. Monster Iestyn (talk) 13:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 00:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1966 Dartmouth Literacy Conference[edit]

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

While undoubtedly detailed and compendious, this very long article on a conference - with a lot of OR/uncited content - is sourced entirely to its own proceedings and publications. With no MSM coverage in evidence, and no evidence to back up claims such as "The Conference had a very big impact on how English and literature were taught in the United States and the United Kingdom for multiple years after the conference.", and with no evidence at all of an impact on British education, let alone American education. In fact, the paper cited here, "The Dartmouth Conference: Its Reports and Results" appears to throw cold water on the while idea of Dartmouth being influential on the teaching of English. We really don't need a list of people who attended a conference in 1966, either.No independent coverage, fails WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Education, United States of America, and New Hampshire. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A Google search for '"Dartmouth conference" english' throws up multiple published academic papers discussing the history and impact of this conference. Clearly one of the few academic conferences to have a significant impact as a conference.Jahaza (talk) 12:51, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of reliable sources.[17][18][19] Thincat (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability has been established by provided sources per Keep voters.—Natalie RicciNatalie 09:49, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:18, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

La Paz Junction, Indiana[edit]

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

The reference does indeed claim a plat for this spot, but it does not claim it to be a town, and I find no evidence of same: there are a few scattered buildings but the contrast with La Paz itself is striking. Seems to be a non-notable rail junction. Mangoe (talk) 04:42, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:31, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NGEO. No significant coverage found in independent reliable sources. BilletsMauves (talk) 09:45, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge >>> Vandalia Railroad (1905–1917)#Terre Haute and Logansport or rename/recast as a La Paz Junction (Indiana). Djflem (talk) 05:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:06, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:55, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet GNG. Avilich (talk) 03:16, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thapaswini Poonacha[edit]

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

Contested draftification. Fails WP:NACTOR. Likely WP:TOOSOON 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Film, and India. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: CSD-G4. I had not realised that this had been sent to AfD and deleted on 18 July!. Salt mainspace against future tendentious moves 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (if the speedy fails for any reason) as non-notable. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing has changed since the time I voted in the last AFD. VV 10:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt, result was soft delete only a few weeks ago and nothing has changed to allow the actress to pass GNG. – Meena • 07:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON at best. -Kj cheetham (talk) 07:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:27, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fugug[edit]

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

Delete as unverifiable, appears to be at best an alias for something for which an article already exists. Searching for sources online merely finds apparent citogenesis from this Wikipedia article. — The Anome (talk) 11:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Ethiopia. Shellwood (talk) 11:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found at least 3 academic sources mentioning "Fugug" in relation to Oromo creation narratives: [20] (p. 9), [21], and [22]. Only the third source gives an indication of it being an identifiable geographic place, so it may not meet GEOLAND. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The original source is dead and the archive copies failed to capture it before it went down. The sources on the Oromo mythology found by Presidentman do not seem to consistently identify the same definite place. An article on the mythology would be fine, welcome even, but this isn't it. We can't have an article claiming to be a geographic feature based on a bunch of mythology. SpinningSpark 12:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 22:36, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Casuarina Senior College[edit]

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

Fails WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. As per earlier AfD, COI is established. Hence, nominated again for a clearer and rational consensus. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 11:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Schools, and Australia. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 11:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even a quick Google search brings up relevant sources to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. What the point is of wp:schooloutcomes is unclear as it in fact double up with the earlier two. The Banner talk 11:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@The Banner ^{[citation needed]}. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 11:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- And what do you mean by that? I guess you will find WP:NEXIST interesting! Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article The Banner talk 11:36, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  @The Banner Prove it. Existence is not enough. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 11:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because you don't like the article, does not mean that I have to improve the article. The Banner talk 11:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  The Banner You haven't gone through WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, I'm sure. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 11:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - You assume a lot but I was around when that RFC finally came into being. And based on my WP:BEFORE (as mention with my vote) I have no doubt about the notability of this school. The Banner talk 11:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Banner This ain't a personal discussion. Please confirm your rational debate as per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 11:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - See my vote... The Banner talk 12:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      The Banner OMH, now you are arguing? See the page history. I added some citations that let you people to argue here. Please come up and don't use "Editors should not flood AfD with indiscriminate or excessive nominations" as I'm the one who is contributing Wiki with citations. You can check my contribution history for citations I have added. Even at the moment, I am editing pages with citations. Please don't insult my work. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 12:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - I am not insulting your work. But it is very unfriend not to respect arguments of others in an AfD-discussion. The Banner talk 12:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First, I want to say that bringing this up again, after the earlier discussion is too soon. Secondly, I still go for Keep. --Bduke (talk) 11:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bduke so you are well aware about WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES huh? Where is your rational debate? _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 11:31, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a discussion and it was no consensus. You should have let that be the result for a while and not bring it up again. If I was still an admin (I gave up being an admin a while back), I would just cancel this new discussion. --Bduke (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bduke It's not a personal debate. Please confirm your rational debate as per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 11:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES clearly states that it is among the Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Please do not WP:BLUDGEON other editors with it, it has no place in this discussion. Jacona (talk) 12:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bduke for your ref "Before 2017, secondary schools were assumed notable unless sources could not be found to prove existence, but following a February 2017 RFC, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist, and are still subject both to the standards of notability, as well as those for organizations." _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 12:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also from schooloutcomes, "WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES should be added to the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, as it is an accurate statement of the results but promotes circular reasoning." Jacona (talk) 12:50, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets WP:GNG. And one does not continue bringing an article to AfD until one gets the result one wants. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The sources in the article and in the previous AfD meet GNG, albeit just that. Sources at Wikipedia Library indicate possible additional coverage. In any case, renominating an article just one week after the closure of the previous AfD, when there has been nothing introduced to change the rationale is a wasste of our time. Jacona (talk) 14:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment does seem too soon for re-nomination. Ref bombs in the intro, then nothing for the rest of the article, do not help. Needs a re-write. Oaktree b (talk) 15:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of books considered the worst[edit]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of novels considered the greatest was recently deleted. This one remains, arguably, even more trivial, failing WP:LISTN/WP:LSC. If kept, this needs major cleanup due to unclear inclusion criteria (" cited by many notable critics" -> some entries have only one ref, who is a "notable critic" here, etc.). The multi-ref entries are not always better; for example, The Four Streets is here because a single reviewer called it "the worst novel I've read in 10 years" (other critical reviews do not use adjective "the worst"). This very much is a list of books that received some negative reviews and in which at least one reviewer used the adjective "worst". On the other hand, if there is consensus to delete, it would be good to merge referenced content to 'reception' section about various books. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article is much more in-line with existing reception lists than the deleted article, which was extremely short and barely referenced. Most of the problems could be fixed with heavy cleanup and an establishment of a minimum number of notable reviews/critiques (maybe 3?) and also a requirement that there are few or no notable positive reviews. I also support a name change to “…notable for negative reception” as it’s more objective. Dronebogus (talk) 11:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:15, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reason to keep worst when 'greatest' novels was deleted. TheRollBoss001 (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF, not a reason to delete. There are “worst/negative” lists with no positive equivalent; wikipedia articles are based on notability, not on having equal and opposite articles. Dronebogus (talk) 15:35, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Unlike with films I'm not really seeing compilations from independent reliable sources chronicling bad books. Maybe I'm not looking deeply enough, but unless there's some book equivalent to "Your Movie Sucks" by Roger Ebert or other less notable publications, I can't say that a list of "worst books" meets WP:NLIST. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NavjotSR (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or at the very least rename. The pagename is self-evidently unencyclopedic. There's no such thing as "considered the worst" universally. It would have to be based on a preponderance of critical secondary sources. A list based on "the worst" according to one particular prominent critic would be too trivial to keep, and a list based on the views of multiple sources would face some serious issues with source inclusion or exclusion. Maybe if there is a tertiary source that could be used to select the criticism sources, it might be possible to keep with a different pagename, but that's a remote chance. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Another possibility would be to convert the list page into a category. Doing so would get around the problem of having to determine consistent sourcing, because any reliable primary source calling it "worst" could place a book into the category. It could be something like Category:Books reviewed as "worst" as a subcategory of Category:Books, or it could be some sort of subcategory of Category:Literary criticism. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and possibly retitle per Dronebogus. The theme of "the worst book ever" has been addressed in various ways, so I think there's a topic here, and if we adjust the title to something like "books notable for negative reputation" then we can avoid hyperbole. Funnily enough, I did turn up an opinion column about how it's harder to name the worst books than the worst movies [23], but I think we can manage by cleaning up the existing page somewhat. The American Book Review had a Top 40 Bad Books compilation that was as much as anything about what it means to label a book as "bad". People talk about the worst books of a year [24], the worst books of a decade [25][26], the worst of all time [27], the worst by great authors [28], the worst that have been forgotten [29]. I think we just need to put some thought into the criteria for inclusion. Or, as Samuel McChord Crothers wrote in 1909, In compiling a list of the Hundred Worst Books one should carefully consider the necessary limitations of the inquiry [30]. XOR'easter (talk) 21:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For example, we could limit the list to books for which we have secondary sources describing an overwhelmingly negative reception. XOR'easter (talk) 22:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Worst book ever written per Dronebogus and others above. Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:57, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, people's reservations about "worst" being a subjective category don't really matter. The subject has indeed been covered in a wide range of publications, see:
- McGrath, Maurice (1925). "The Hundred Worst Books". The Irish Monthly. 53 (623). Irish Jesuit Province: 253–256. ISSN 2009-2113. JSTOR 20517650. Retrieved 2 August 2022.
- Various (1941). ""The World's Worst Book": A Symposium". Books Abroad. 15 (1). JSTOR: 49. doi:10.2307/40081795. ISSN 0006-7431.
- Henrie, M.C. (1999). "The fifty worst (and best) books of the century". Intercollegiate Review. 35 (1). ProQuest: 3.
- Crothers, Samuel McChord (1 May 1909). "The Hundred Worst Books". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2 August 2022.
- Dirda, Michael (21 August 2018). "What's the worst novel ever? It might be this 19th-century train wreck". Washington Post. Retrieved 2 August 2022.
- Popp, Isabelle (19 May 2022). "What Are the Worst Books of All Time?". BOOK RIOT. Retrieved 2 August 2022.
- Brophy, B.; Levey, Michael; Osborne, Charles (1969). Fifty works of English literature we could do without. Stein and Day. ISBN 0-8128-1230-1. OCLC 499928622.
- Wilson, Richard (17 September 2008). "10 Books Not To Read Before You Die". The Times. Retrieved 2 August 2022.
- Hollingshead, Iain (27 March 2011). "Not the 50 books you must read before you die". The Telegraph. Retrieved 2 August 2022.
- Jordison, Sam (8 December 2009). "What were your worst books of the decade?". the Guardian. Retrieved 2 August 2022.
- Garner, Dwight (24 December 1997). "The worst books of 1997". Salon. Retrieved 2 August 2022.
- "The world's worst writing". The Guardian. 24 December 1999. Retrieved 2 August 2022.
- ""Ten Worst Books" to Be Listed by Library". Journal of Education. 103 (5): 134. 1926. Retrieved 3 August 2022. Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. It's possible we can work out some criteria, the question is whether WP:TNT is needed first. Ping User:ReaderofthePack, User:TompaDompa. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked into the sources (at least not yet—we'll see if I find to do so later), but I'm inclined to agree with Dream Focus: for this to be a valid list topic, there needs to be pretty clear evidence of consensus among the sources about the candidates for the books that might be considered the worst. Otherwise, we're just listing an arbitrary collection of individual opinions. I suspect that doing it analogously to List of films considered the best (as I also suggested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of novels considered the greatest), which in this case would mean listing books that have been voted the worst in notable polls, would not be possible for lack of such polls. Books being considered "the worst" might be something that is best covered at the relevant articles for the books in question (assuming it is WP:DUE, of course). TompaDompa (talk) 18:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (per WP:TNT, if for no other reason). "Worst" in what sense? Literary value? Content? Technique? This list is all over the map. The Virginians is variously labeled Thackeray's worst novel, the worst by a great novelist, and - by a single person only - "the worst novel anyone ever wrote". Ralph 124C 41+ is apparently very poorly written, but has numerous accurately prophetic concepts to its credit. There are bad poems and collections of poems. Mein Kampf is called "the most evil book in history". Also, there is a big difference between books and films: there are a lot fewer of the latter. It is therefore relatively easy for film critics to reach a consensus on which are great and which fall well short of the mark. There is a practically endless supply of bad books, however, so there does not seem to be any agreement in that medium. The writer of the Atlantic article "The Hundred Worst Books" agrees: "It is not my purpose to furnish a list of the Worst Books. I do not think it would be within the power of any one to make a selection that would be universally accepted." Clarityfiend (talk) 04:14, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But he does go on to say, Though the systematic study of literary failures may be less attractive to some minds than the contemplation of successful efforts, there can be no question as to its usefulness. It stands in the same relation to formal rhetoric that pathology does to physiology. "List of books considered the worst" is probably an unencyclopedic title, but "List of books noteworthy for a negative reputation" is viable (and can make use of much of the same content, if appropriately winnowed). XOR'easter (talk) 14:50, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if a list is viable. But it's interesting to note where great book redirects. Now, terrible book doesn't exist... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This one is tricky. We could turn into a table like what I have in my userspace for the best of draft, but that may remove context. On the other hand, this context would presumably be in the articles for the books or the author. I suppose that this could be an additional criteria for the page: to be included the book would need to be independently notable. I'm not opposed to this just being a category either, however it would need some sort of guidelines set forth to ensure that people don't add it willy nilly to books that have been criticized for one reason or another but aren't on a "worst of" list. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per Clarityfiend, "worst" is a vague and subjective inclusion criterion, regardless of whether the word has been used by sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the reliable sources covering this all listed the same books on their worse list, then it'd pass the general notability guidelines. That doesn't seem to be happening though. Dream Focus 10:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this rather un-encyclopedic list. Lightburst (talk) 02:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is really about published books that received strongly negative reviews, and/or were mocked in various media. There is no way to arrive at "worst" any more than there is a way to make a list of "yukky foods." Presumably this information should be included in the articles for those books. Lamona (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is clearly unencyclopaedic as it is a collection of personal opinions and negative reviews from different sources combined to form a single list. Instead the criticism of each book should be moved to their respective pages. DEFCON5 (talk) 04:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:29, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of food months[edit]

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

This seems like a WP:INDISCRIMINATE failure of WP:NLIST (while some month-long evens dedicated to food have happened here or there, grouping them together and listing them like this seems non-encyclopedic OR). Food month isn't a defined concept. List of month-long events related to food would be a more correct name... List of food days may merit discussions too. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of food weeks was just closed as soft delete due to no participation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Events, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dorjee K Thongun[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:SIGCOV. Just WP:MILL case. Page history indicates a COI. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 08:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bibliographies, Film, and India. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 08:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It was soft-deleted in the first AfD back in 2018. It was recreated but not improved. —C.Fred (talk) 02:05, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and C.FredDeepfriedokra (talk) 02:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Zakir Meyra[edit]

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

Delete as unverifable. Although there are numerous citations given, almost all of the article seems to be effectively based on a single source, and the citations given seem to be insufficient to track that source down, either online or in libraries. The name of the author cited also seems to be that of the Wikipedian who created the article; are they literally just citing themselves as source, over and over?

(I'd also note that another article the same editor created, Umar Bakkalcha, also shows the same citation pattern, and it might well be worth examining all of their contributions further.) — The Anome (talk) 08:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Ethiopia. Shellwood (talk) 08:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close because the article was moved to Draft by its creator. However, there is already an AfD for another version of the singer's article; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Firoz chaudhary. (non-admin closure) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Firoz Chaudhary (Singer)[edit]

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

Repeatedly declined AfC submission moved to articlespace by the creator. Non-notable musician, BEFORE search turned up 1 result, which seems to be a self-published source anyway. Fails GNG and NMUSICIAN. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 08:35, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and India. Shellwood (talk) 08:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please note that the page creator has now moved the original page to Draft:Sohib singer, and reposted a new version at Firoz chaudhary. PohranicniStraze (talk) 12:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Mullen[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable reality television contestant; competed on, but did not win, Survivor. Bgsu98 (talk) 03:26, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, Beauty pageants, and Ohio. Bgsu98 (talk) 03:26, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's not really any coverage for her outside of this show, so no reason to suspect notability, but what little there is is all related to the one show, and so falls under WP:BLP1E. There's not any reason we need this article. Jacona (talk) 21:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only Notability is from Survivor, all 3 sources are articles about her on Survivor. Does not meet WP:GNG. --Littehammy (talk) 00:21, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Jones[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Lacks notability; competed on, but did not win, Survivor. Bgsu98 (talk) 03:14, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, and Texas. Bgsu98 (talk) 03:14, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't care if she won a TV show or not, she seems like a notable person, who launched a notable organisation, and who wrote a notable book. I do accept that a lot (but not all) of the sources below are based on interviews, but still, for the conversation to focus on her winning a TV show or not seems like we're missing the bigger picture here:

https://www.vibe.com/news/sports/sexual-harassment-nick-young-jordan-clarkson-412133/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2017/03/15/activist-aims-to-combat-sexual-assault-by-engaging-athletes/99219752/
https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/317844
https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/alexis-jones/i-am-that-girl/ #https://www.salon.com/2014/03/14/i_am_that_girls_new_generation_of_girl_power/ #https://www.glamour.com/story/kristen-bell-talks-friendships
https://www.oprah.com/inspiration/alexis-jones-i-am-that-girl-founder https://www.today.com/style/i-am-girl-organization-empowers-girls-young-women-t23671 CT55555 (talk) 03:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ample coverage exists for her work with ProtectHer ([31] [32]) in addition to coverage about her time competing on Survivor. The article needs some work and definitely places too much emphasis on her being on a tv show when the articles seem to be more focussed on her activism, but that's no reason to delete. Samsmachado (talk) 22:31, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has sufficient coverage to meet WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to meet WP:GNG. Some work needed on the article, but WP:DINC. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eliza Orlins[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable reality television contestant; competed on, but did not win, Survivor and The Amazing Race. Bgsu98 (talk) 03:10, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and New York. Bgsu98 (talk) 03:10, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable as a local political activist/aspiring politician who ran for Manhattan AG[33][34][35] Andrevan@ 03:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She finished 7th in the primary. Bgsu98 (talk) 04:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seventh place in an election isn't notable and the TV shows only had her as what amounts to a background character with no notability when the show ended (finishing 7th, 9th etc). Oaktree b (talk) 15:00, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A candidate's performance in an election does not affect their notability if they already meet NBASIC, which Orlins does based on the links provided by Andrevan, as well as this and this (already cited in the article). Hatman31 (talk) 21:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to meet NBASIC per sources outlined above. But, even if she didn't, her reality tv appearances might just meet WP:ENT 1 ("Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions") — she finished 4th in one season of Survivor and was significant enough to be brought back; though she was eliminated in 9th place in Amazing Race, coverage exists that implies her presence on the show was at least somewhat significant. Samsmachado (talk) 22:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Seems to have significant coverage per WP:GNG but there is something to say about the precedent of deletion of reality stars for lack of notability outside of the show. The DA Primary election as well as work with The Legal Aid Society is notable, I'd be lying if I didn't say I felt off about it only having 4 lines in the totality of the article. --Littehammy (talk) 17:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets NBASIC based on sources. Ugla'a (talk) 02:52, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. CSD G7. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:11, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jovo Jovanović[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:BLP1E and/or WP:NOPAGE. Also, the author of this article seems to have determined that she is a supercentenarian or "Serbian man ever" recognized by an organization called ESO, but I don't think ESO is an internationally recognized and prestigious longevity science organization, unlike Gerontology Research Group. More famous and prominent articles about the oldest people, the country's oldest person titieholder, have also been deleted in the past like Misao Okawa, Yukichi Chuganji, etc. There is no reason to keep only this article of the oldest person in a small country like Serbia, when considering impartiality...--Ayuta Tonomura (talk) 03:10, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions 03:10, 1 August 2022 (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 no consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kiran Bala Bora[edit]

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

Coverage does not appear significant enough to meet WP:GNG. Most of the sources provided (e.g. [36], [37]) only contain passing mentions of Bora. Apparently written by a relative of the subject. – Ploni (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, India, and Assam. Ploni (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.

The first PDF linked above mentions her 15 times (search for "Kiranbala" to verify). That is more than a passing mention.
Passing mention, but described as "the legendary social activist Kiran Bala Bora" here: "The pathogen called gender discrimination." Assam Tribune [Guwahati, India], 6 Apr. 2021, p. NA. Gale OneFile: News, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A657902977/STND?u=wikipedia&sid=ebsco&xid=47bb39ef. Accessed 16 July 2022.
14 mentions in this book: Sharma, D. (1993). Assamese Women in the Freedom Struggle. India: Punthi-Pustak.

If you search for her in the format "KiranBala Bora" you also get

https://ousar.lib.okayama-u.ac.jp/files/public/4/40928/20160528032043930389/oer_033_2_001_009.pdf briefly mentions her as one of 4 women leaders of a movement of 400 people

In summary I see two sources that mention her significantly, and passing mentions as an important leader. CT55555 (talk) 19:11, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources given are a bit borderline for me - The Sharma book mentions her mostly in combination with other women leaders, and has but a few descriptions of what she did on her own. Can't access the 1993 book. I think it's likely more sources exist in Assamese, or given the time period, offline sources, which brings me to keep. Femke (talk) 18:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 16:37, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Badminton at the 2022 Maccabiah Games[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTDATABASE. Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It makes no sense to pick one of all the sports under Category:Sports at the Maccabiah Games. This needs a general discussion for all the aports there. --Florentyna (talk) 04:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a valid deletion rationale Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:31, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Badminton, and Israel. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Florentyna. St Anselm (talk) 08:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as article author. I was under the impression that individual sports at international multi-sports events regularly had their own pages. The Maccabiah Games are among the largest sporting events in the world, and WP has ample pages for sports at other smaller events (2019 European Games for example) - not to say WP:WHATABOUT, but I think that if there are questions to be brought about these sort of pages, we should have a wider discussion about what we include on WP rather than pick off individual articles. In terms of the arguments brought up here, I don't personally think they hold much weight. I don't see anything at WP:NOTDATABASE to suggest that this wouldn't be a viable article type (I don't think it comes under Excessive listings of unexplained statistics - let me know if I'm missing something obvious though), and IMO it has enough references to verify everything there to a good enough standard. Thanks, Gazamp (talk) 12:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the Maccabiah is major event that is covered by media.Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 19:48, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Maccabiah is definitely an event of importance. Enough not only for its own article but also for edition articles and for multi-year summaries per sport. On the other hand, it is not important enough for articles per sport per Maccabiah or per delegation per Maccabiah. Still, the medal count table in the AfDd is a legitimate addition to the empty medal count header in the 2022 Maccabiah Games article, under a sub-header badminton. So suggesting a bit of merge as well. Per sports discussion should also appear in the individual Maccabiah articles. The immediate problem here is premature WP:SPINOFF/WP:SPINOUT. As pointed out by nom, the WP:GNG is not (clearly) met for the minor sports but this would allow to preserve all major ones. In my book, all these articles need to go. gidonb (talk) 04:14, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Florentyna. We should decide on an approach and then restructure information of a given multi-sport event as desired. But we shouldn't have gaps in our coverage because one article got nominated for deletion and the one next to it didn't. Simeon (talk) 10:53, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:33, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Bradley[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMMA. His highest ranking by Fight Matrix was 83rd in the lightweight division, and he never previously appeared in Sherdog's top 10 rankings. A WP:BEFORE shows up no significant coverage either. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 00:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, United States of America, and Louisiana. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 00:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA,also not enough significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. —Natalie RicciNatalie 08:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA, and I didn't find any significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Jacona (talk) 00:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus that the added sources are sufficient to meet WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:46, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Markey[edit]

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Plenty of hits about a Patrick Markey discusisng violent video games, unsure if it's the same fellow as this producer. I find one mention of him going to an awards ceremony in a Bozeman newspaper. Video game Patrick appears more notable than producer Patrick. Oaktree b (talk) 02:26, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. Added some sources. He's a 40-year vet and most of his career is going to be offline sources. Per creative he played a key role in two important films, The Horse Whisperer and A River Runs Through It. -- GreenC 16:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You're talking about the Moral Combat guy, right Oaktree b? Agree, he seems more notable! Film Patrick is not, per WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:20, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability is not inherited. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 23:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Invalid rationale for topic deletion. WP:INHERIT says don't make this argument during AfD discussions, that's all it means ("It only applies to arguments to avoid at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion"). Nobody here has made an inherit argument. If you are referring to my Keep, because WP:NACTOR requires two important films. -- GreenC 03:19, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks to sources added by GreenC. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:25, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interviews are not reliable sources of information. He's been nominated for several awards, but never won any. Sean Brunnock (talk) 14:13, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
People often say no interviews, but I am curious as to what guideline it is? What rule are you citing? I would like to read it. I found WP:INTERVIEW but it's just a user essay that someone wrote. Because what counts as an "interview" with long block quotes answering questions verbatim; versus a biographical piece that includes quotes from the subject; versus original journalism that appears in the same piece. It's pretty complicated. You'll have to explain which one(s) and why they are interviews and why the interview essay trumps GNG and NACTOR in this case. -- GreenC 15:13, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even accepting the interviews, all of the references amount to "He's an interesting guy." Not a notable one. Sean Brunnock (talk) 15:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Interesting" is an argument to avoid see WP:INTERESTING. According to WP:NOTE: "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines". We base it on the guidelines first and foremost, then weigh things such as importance. Your rationale is entirely based on your perception of his importance. -- GreenC 16:52, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Think you might like to re-read Sean's comment, there. He asserts lack of notability OVER the 'interesting' stuff... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:56, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry you are right, he's saying the sources say interesting while Sean himself says "Not notable." Per WP:JUSTNOTABLE "Simply stating that the subject of an article is not notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may not be notable." What guideline or policy is Sean basing the not notable assertion on? -- GreenC 18:28, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're asking me to prove a negative. Sean Brunnock (talk) 18:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking why you think it fails NOTE. -- GreenC 19:05, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not up to me to prove that he's not notable. It's up to you to prove that he is.

There are 4 citations in the article-
Local man going to the Emmys. Lot's of folks go to the Emmys. Not notable.

Northwest Ohio native Patrick Markey...is a fervent supporter of those calling for change. Not notable.

Producer Patrick Markey is currently developing a number of projects through his Fostoria Film Co., including “Heart Mountain,” to which Robert Redford is attached as star and director. Heart Mountain never got made and Fostoria doesn't have a WP page. Not notable.

Film producer Patrick Markey, a West Virginia native, visited the West Virginia University College of Law to take part in a question and answer session and screening of "The Natural," a movie he was involved in...

None of this seems notable to me. Sean Brunnock (talk) 19:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you have now said why. That's all. It's not about "proof", just need to give a rule-based rationale why you think the sources fail Note. Based on your reply, I think you are saying the sources are not "significant coverage" ie. WP:NOTE says "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". In this case you consider "significant" not to be word count or focus (these source are all entirely about Markey) rather the quality of the source content doesn't meet your standards of notability. That's fine, it's your opinion and a valid one. I think he meets WP:NACTOR, but we can both have valid rules-based opinions and disagree. -- GreenC 00:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Brunnock, it doesn't matter how you (or any of us) assess the subject's achievements. If reliable sources have chosen to cover the subject, he's notable. ~Kvng (talk) 17:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Leaning delete on this one, but hoping to see a bit more discussion on the four sources that were added to this article during the AfD, and whether they constitute notability per GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 00:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:PRODUCER says 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 and (correct me if I'm wrong) he's produced at least 10 films that are each sufficiently notable to have their own wikipedia article? That seems like a clear pass at the criteria. I understand that for creative professionals, it's OK if they are not the subject of the sources, as long as their work is, so feels like an easy "keep" from me. CT55555 (talk) 17:35, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - GreenC added four sources: two from local papers, one from Variety (magazine) and one from a student newspaper. Variety is definitely reliable and has significant coverage. The two local papers are also reliable and have significant coverage. Some editors are not persuaded by local coverage but there's no policy reason to exclude it for a bio and the local coverage is in two different areas: Bozeman (where the subject lives) and Toledo (where he was born). This definitely meets WP:42. ~Kvng (talk) 18:24, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Widely covered per search results on ProQuest. Additionally, he has received multiple nominations for awards such as PGA Awards, including in 2021. 2001:569:5593:5900:90E0:EBBE:1798:3609 (talk) 20:51, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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