Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 January 17

Guide to deletion

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

The result was redirect to 2022 California's 17th State Assembly district special election. Per normal practice and per the lack of sourcing identified that indicate coverage separate from the election of independent from his alma mater. Should Mahmood win, an article can be considered at that time. Star Mississippi 15:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Bilal Mahmood

Bilal Mahmood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Seeking a redirect to 2022 California's 17th State Assembly district special election. I have done some research into the subject and cleaned the article in recent days. Most coverage appears to be linked to Stanford (his alma mater) or refer to the subject in relation to his candidacy in the 17th district election. Doesn't seem notable to me per WP:POLITICIAN. BriefEdits (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. BriefEdits (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. BriefEdits (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. BriefEdits (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. BriefEdits (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delete If he wins the assembly race, then he will be notable. Unelected candidates to state legislatures are never notable for that, and the other coverage is not independent enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delete -As above - he is only a candidate at this stage, and they aren't inheritently notable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Keep -First the article was stripped down in a series of edits which takes significant work to even understand, and then the same editor tries to delete the stripped article days later with an argument that is not in line with Wikipedia's notability guidelines.

More specifically, WP:BIO explicitly states that notability is satisfied by "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." and that "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline" which this article easily does with more than the minimum of 2 sources. This source assessment table of 8 sources (none of which have been mentioned) demonstrates:

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/Spotlight-on-S-F-Assembly-race-Bilal-Mahmood-16789294.php	SF Chronicle is a independent of Bilal Mahmood	SF Chronicle is well established news outlet	article is entirely about Bilal Mahmood	✔ Yes
https://www.ebar.com/news/news//311180	The Bay Area Reporter is a independent of Bilal Mahmood	The Bay Area Reporter is America's longest continuously-published and highest circulation LGBTQ newspaper. However, it's unclear if they have a track record of fact checking and accuracy. More importantly, this is an opinion piece and thus we cannot rely on the paper's reputation	article is entirely about Bilal Mahmood	✘ No
https://stanforddaily.com/2021/11/07/bilal-mahmood-09-running-for-ad17-to-recover-beacon-of-hope/	The Stanford Daily is a independent of Bilal Mahmood	The Stanford Daily is the independent, student-run newspaper of Stanford University. Student media is explicitly considered reliable with the Harvard Crimson given as an example	article is entirely about Bilal Mahmood	✔ Yes
https://missionlocal.org/2022/01/assembly-candidate-bilal-mahmood-is-often-a-no-show-when-it-comes-to-voting/	Mission Local is a independent of Bilal Mahmood	Mission Local is a fiscally sponsored project of San Francisco Public Press and was originally a project of UC Berkeley’s Journalism School	article is entirely about Bilal Mahmood	✔ Yes
https://sfstandard.com/elections/bilal-mahmood-entrepreneur-and-scientist-on-why-hes-running/	San Francisco Standard is a independent of Bilal Mahmood	San Francisco Standard is an independent, for-profit company, with initial funding provided by Michael Moritz, a partner at Sequoia Capital	article is entirely about Bilal Mahmood	✔ Yes
https://www.kqed.org/news/11890455/david-chius-seat-in-california-assembly-already-has-candidates-lining-up-for-special-election	KQED is a independent of Bilal Mahmood	KQED is well established news outlet	article significantly covers Bilal Mahmood	✔ Yes
http://www.sfexaminer.com/news/the-hottest-political-race-of-sfs-election-season/	SF Examiner is a independent of Bilal Mahmood	SF Examiner is well established news outlet	article significantly covers Bilal Mahmood	✔ Yes
https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/07/clearbrain-launch/	TechCrunch is a independent of Bilal Mahmood	TechCrunch is well established news outlet	Bilal Mahmood is discussed and quoted extensively in the article. The article is primarily about ClearBrain and not Bilal Mahmood. However, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material"	✔ Yes
https://techcrunch.com/2019/08/16/clearbrain-launches-analytics-tools-focused-connecting-cause-and-effect/	TechCrunch is a independent of Bilal Mahmood	TechCrunch is well established news outlet	Bilal Mahmood is discussed and quoted extensively in the article. The article is primarily about ClearBrain and not Bilal Mahmood. However, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material"	✔ Yes
https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/joegarofoli/article/That-rejected-495-unit-complex-in-San-Francisco-16596721.php	SF Chronicle is a independent of Bilal Mahmood	SF Chronicle is well established news outlet	only 3 of 33 paragraphs mention Bilal Mahmood	✘ No
https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/aocs-former-chief-of-staff-weighs-in-on-san-francisco-politics/	SF Examiner is a independent of Bilal Mahmood	SF Examiner is well established news outlet	Bilal Mahmood is mentioned only twice	✘ No
https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/Who-will-replace-Assemblymember-David-Chiu-City-16496647.php	SF Chronicle is a independent of Bilal Mahmood	SF Chronicle is well established news outlet	article significantly covers Bilal Mahmood	✔ Yes
https://www.medgadget.com/2013/04/qa-with-bilal-mahmood-of-science-exchange.html	MedGadget is a independent of Bilal Mahmood	MadGadget is well established medical tech news outlet	article significantly covers Bilal Mahmood	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

The idea that no unelected candidate can be notable is a clearly incorrect interpretation of WP:BIO. This incorrect argument focuses only on the fact that such being an unelected candidate does not guarantee notability. This is precisely why I decided to not write abandon a draft about the other candidate in this race, which I started drafting first (Draft:Thea Selby). This article, however, clearly meets WP:BIO which is all that is required by WP:NOTE. The two editors who have voted to delete the article have not made any reference at all to the requirements of WP:NOTE, have not assessed or even discussed sources, and have ignored the numerous other notable aspects of the article's subject (founded a company which was acquired by another notable company, crafted a California Green New Deal with the notable author of the original notable Green New Deal, etc. all of which is significantly covered by articles which are independent and reliable, per the source assessment table --Jjersin (talk) 05:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• @Jjersin: 1. It's inaccurate to misplace my clean up effort as having "stripped" the article. If you'd like to discuss edits, I'd be more than welcome to discuss the specifics of it. 2. Again, most of the coverage you have listed above are mostly partially referring to Mahmood in relation to the election. That is why I am seeking a redirect because Mahmood's coverage at the moment is mostly derivative of the election news. The reason why there are guidelines like WP:BIO1E and WP:POLITICIAN is to be extra careful with creating articles on people who are not covered outside of the election cycle. To you and other readers, I'd recommend looking over Talk:Shahid_Buttar, a failed candidate for US House of Rep who has been through numerous deletion nominations for further arguments. 3. Furthermore, the assertion that he is notable because he founded a company that was acquired is not necessarily true. Firstly, we have to establish the notability of the company that he founded independent of the acquisition company per WP:INHERITORG before even attempting to establish notability of the founders via that route. 4. Endorsements, broadly speaking, are like WP:NOTNEWS to me. — BriefEdits (talk) 07:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Delete As a candidate seeking election, he does not currently meet WP:NPOL. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Keep The guidelines state "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline." The general notability guideline states "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Looking at the source assessment table, this page clearly meets that criteria given that there are nine such stories. The guidelines give us no reason to do so, but let's ignore all coverage relating to the election given the responses thus far. If we consider solely his role as CEO of ClearBrain, there are multiple stories in TechCrunch where almost every paragraph features Mr. Mahmood, thus meeting the notability guideline of multiple instances of significant coverage in reliable sources for the individual's role as a notable business leader. Most of the other analyses here are far too shallow giving no consideration of or investigation into the individual's role as a CEO who founded and sold a startup to a billion dollar company. 50.236.12.34 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• @50.236.12.34: As a rule of thumb, past consensus seems to deem TechCrunch as an iffy source for notability (per WP:TECHCRUNCH). — BriefEdits (talk) 04:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• Responses continue to ignore sources and reasons for notability. For example, the creation of a Green New Deal for California with the original author of The Green New Deal has been dismissed as an endorsement, when in reality it's a significant and public legislative proposal [1]. The company Bilal Mahmood founded has been dismissed without attempting to determine it's notability or the notability of his role [2][3], [4], [5], [6]. Mahmood's notable philanthropic activities, unrelated to his candidacy, have been given no weight [7]. Bilal Mahmood's notable political activities separate from his candidacy have not been considered [8].

In summary, the arguments for deletion are as simplistic as can be, essentially claiming that it is not possible for anyone to be a political candidate and also notable, so this article must be deleted for the sole reason that the subject is a political candidate. This reasoning is fatuous at best, as there are clear counterexamples Christine O'Donnell which are highly notable justify long articles for over a decade. The arguments fail to discuss other reasons for notability on almost any level, completely disregarding analysis of sources [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18] which either contradict their arguments, or prove notability separate from the subject's candidacy. Deletion without addressing the arguments for notability themselves, or the sources that prove it, is wrong. --Jjersin (talk) 17:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• @Jjersin:1. When I was talking about the Green New Deal endorsement, I was referring to the article used as an inline citation in the article. Even then, I'm not seeing any coverage pertaining to that, other than the opinion piece that he wrote for the SF Examiner that you linked.

• The point is that it's not just an endorsement as you had claimed, it's also a policy package, co-created with a notable person, that did get mentioned in the press. --Jjersin (talk) 04:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

2. The Chinatown article literally just says that he noticed the story on Twitter. It's kind of a stretch to make it about his "philanthropy".

• Wrong. It sounds like you didn't read it. That same article also talks about his background as the son of immigrants, his views of the challenges faced by immigrants, and the impact of crime on small business. --Jjersin (talk) 04:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

3. I am simply not seeing the notability of him founding a company that happened to be acquired—especially when the principal source is TechCrunch (which is iffy), the secondary source is more about the acquisition, and Y-Combinator coverage is extremely routine for TechCrunch.

• Again, you're saying TechCrunch is iffy, though I provided 2 other sources, and you're not describing why the 3 TechCrunch sources are inadequate, even though guidelines state they should be handled case by case. --Jjersin (talk) 04:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

4. Most if not all political coverage is related to him being a candidate in the CA State Assembly Race (hence the redirect request). No news outlet is going to ask to interview him or quote him if he wasn't involved in the race. Being mentioned in the news for a comment or interviewed does not make him notable enough for his own article when most of his notability is derived from his candidacy. If you want to make the Christine O'Donnell comparison, then show me a level of national or international coverage that Mahmood has received that matches O'Donnell's. — BriefEdits (talk) 01:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• Here's you're just reiterating your earlier point and injecting your opinion about whether news outlets are interested in him for reasons other than his candidacy, again, in the face of several sources to the contrary and the fact that news outlets have been interviewing him since 2013 for other reasons [19]. I'm not making a Christine O'Donnell comparison, her wikipedia article is massive, and that's a straw man of my argument. I'm making a very clear counterpoint to your argument that a political candidate can never be notable.--Jjersin (talk) 04:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• In summary, we have a number of sources which are independent, reliable, and contain significant coverage across a number of topics - the subject's company, gates scholarship, philanthropy, as well as his candidacy. On the other side we have an argument that TechCrunch is iffy, a failure to read sources, and an argument that boils down to the idea that articles should be automatically deleted if the subject runs for political office. --Jjersin (talk) 04:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• Keep I don't edit Wikipedia much, but I was surprised to see someone who I consider to be famous in the tech community to getting their page deleted. In line with all the policies cited, it seems there are several sources which are reliable and independent across multiple topics and times.Ericatj (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• Keep It's clear from the table above that there's more than a trivial amount of coverage about him. I'm obviously biased as another YC founder, but there's an ok amount of references and there's no clear COI. Personally, I know there's a growing community of support for his candidacy, especially in the tech sector, so I don't se any reason this has to go. AnandChowdhary (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:49, 25 January 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 speedy keep. The nominator has been blocked for sockpuppetry. (non-admin closure) —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Will Healy (composer)

Will Healy (composer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Nothing notable whatsoever. Delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiIAmLarryTomJoe (talk • contribs) 16:13, January 15, 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Procedurally completing nomination on behalf of the above user, who has been blocked as a sock per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Johnathan57Joyceefyt. Their sockitude was not confirmed until after this page had been created, so WP:CSD#G5 does not apply. --Finngall ^talk 23:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep This Afc was created by Blocked Editor HiIAmLarryTomJoe, this AfC needs to be closed ASAP! Chip3004 (talk) 03:46, 18 January 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 keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Lynn Joseph

Lynn Joseph (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails a WP:BEFORE search. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 23:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 23:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 23:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 23:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Keep. Her books have been the subject of six Kirkus reviews, two of them starred. Easily passes WP:NAUTHOR#3 as the creator of a significant and well-known body of work. pburka (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:NAUTHOR#3 - I found nine Kirkus reviews and five from Publishers Weekly [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]. Beccaynr (talk) 04:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:HEY. Geschichte (talk) 06:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment per WP:HEY, reviews from Kirkus, Publishers Weekly, Booklist and the School Library Journal, a link to a biography published by Gale Literature: Contemporary Authors (2014), and information about various awards have been added to the article. Beccaynr (talk) 17:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• Not really a HEY, though. These sources can all easily be found. They should have been found by the nom in their BEFORE. pburka (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• I am always in the mood of shouting HEY! happily whenever someone actually adds the sources to the article, instead of just stating them in the discussion (which I too have been guilty of on occasion). Moreover, the nominator's statement, while given in good faith, has been demonstrated to be patently untrue, and the discussion now meets WP:SKCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 21:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• Keep. Seems to be a lot of reviews of her work, indicating notability *though* a lot of them are in the one title, Kirkus Reviews, which I'm not sure is a good example of RS if its publishing a high volume of reviews rather than being selective. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• Keep. Since when do we nominate authors with this coverage and publication pedigree for deletion? Cannot make sense using WP:NAUTHOR standards. She is being mentioned alongside of her publications in academic journals since 1999. We need more articles about her books, actually. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 08:06, 19 January 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 speedy delete. Deleted by User:Jimfbleak under WP:G11 and creator sanctioned accordingly. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Kourosh Torbat Zadeh

Kourosh Torbat Zadeh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Recreated several times today. The first attempt was speedy deleted for multiple reasons but the second one was given a chance by being sent to draft (Draft:Kourosh Torbat Zadeh), indicating that the topic has potential merit. A third identical copy has now been posted again in mainspace, which is usually an attempt to game the system.

None of the sources show significant coverage. This one looks to be the best but is actually written by Torbat Zadeh himself and is a press release, so is not WP:RS. A Persian search also yielded nothing apart from his own social media. There is no clear evidence that he passes WP:NMUSICIAN or WP:NACTOR either. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delete The only coverage I found was a self-published press release. If, for some reason, Zadeh is found to be notable, the article quality demands nuking from orbit and a rewrite. Kleuske (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delete Looks like a promotional page for a nobody. Oaktree b (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delete I think it is harsh to call any person a "nobody" but I don't think this individual meets Wikipedia's standards for notability for actors, WP:NACTOR. I also have a prejudice against new editors writing articles promoting themselves and their careers. I see dozen of these articles in Draft space every day but compared to those half-hearted efforts, it seems like this editor has been extremely persistent. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delete as not coming anywhere close to general notability or biographical notability or musical notability or acting notability. Does not have any of the footnotes that are required for a biography of a living person.
  • • It was sent to draft not because of any possible notability but as the alternative to A7 because there might or might not be a credible claim of significance. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment to User:Liz - I think that Wikipedia has a policy of prejudice against new editors writing promotional articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - I also have a prejudice against editors who create two copies of an article, in draft space and in article space, especially if they also have a conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delete. Lacks significant coverage, and a whiff of promotion around the whole thing. Pikavoom ^Talk 06:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delete. In addition to the obvious lack of notability and CV styling, it is also a COPYVIO from his IMDb profile at www.imdb.com/name/nm13121927/, such as this exact match: "...was born on June 25, 1991 in the city of Mashhad, Iran مشهد ایران . He is an employee of MTN Irancell and works in the field of content production in this large company and is one of the well-known and popular forces of this company. He is fluent in German and also works in the field of acting and singing. He is also a TV presenter..."--Gronk Oz (talk) 06:44, 18 January 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 delete. WP:SNOW deletion. There's nothing of note to merge with CM Punk. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

List of CM Punk Matches in AEW

List of CM Punk Matches in AEW (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No such other page exists and this isnt even notable in the first place Muur (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Muur (talk) 22:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Delete: The article has no source. And Punk in his career has wrestled in many places, ROH, TNA, WWE, why should his AEW matches be exclusively listed? And there are many wrestlers in WWE and AEW, we don't need to go listing evry single matches they had for a particular promotion, if that was the case there have been far more important wrestlers than Punk (Hogan, Flair, Hart, Austin) who deserves that honor. This is pure CM Punk WP:Fancruft. Dilbaggg (talk) 22:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 January 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Merge as appropriate to CM Punk. Agree that this does not need to be a standalone list. Jclemens (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

doesnt even deserve to be a redirect.Muur (talk) 05:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• Delete as WP:FANCRUFT, no other lists exist of this sort of nature that I could find. Ajf773 (talk) 10:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delete, far too much detail. McPhail (talk) 13:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delete, WP FANCRUFT. Not needed a redirect. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delete, it appears to be out of wiki scope. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delete, Pure WP:FANCRUFT and per above, definitely out of WP scope. Spf121188 (talk) 17:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delete. Seriously, who thought this was a good idea? oknazevad (talk) 19:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• It appears to be SNOWing. Spf121188 (talk) 19:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delete, Pure WP:FANCRUFT, and yeah, looks like WP:SNOW. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delete Textbook fandom-related stuff. Mann Mann (talk) 05:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delete Looks like a fan-made article rather than an encyclopedic article.Juggyevil (talk) 14:38, 19 January 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 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 03:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

International Conference on Game Theory at Stony Brook

International Conference on Game Theory at Stony Brook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subtopic of Stony Brook Center for Game Theory, itself a (presumably non-notable) subtopic of Stony Brook University. Contains no independent sources and a WP:BEFORE turns up nothing. (To save anyone inclined to investigate the trouble, the NPP reviewer who approved this has already had the permission yanked, although it's certainly possible that other pages they approved need AfDing.) {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delete Time to close the browser tabs where I was looking into this... It's a conference. Yep, sure held some meetings, that they did. I was unable to find enough about the history of it to suggest that writing that history would be interesting or worthwhile. Does it add to the meaning that a paper gives a reader if the reader sees that the research was presented at the ICGTSB? Not that I can tell. It can be hard to document academic activities like conferences, legitimate-but-niche journals, etc. But the rarity of documentation doesn't mean we should lower our standards; it just means that we often can't write about those things. Too bad, in a way, but so it goes. XOR'easter (talk) 22:28, 24 January 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 delete. ✗plicit 03:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

John Kennedy College

John Kennedy College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article is extremely promotional and only referenced primary sources. Unfortunately when I looked for better ones all I could find was a 95 page book called "John Kennedy College : 30 years of purple magic : the Eagles 95," which was written by the school. So I'm nominating this for deletion since secondary schools are not inherently notable. That said, the rather ambiguous name probably doesn't help things so maybe someone can references that I couldn't. If anything does turn up at least make sure it's for the right place before posting it in the AfD. Thanks. Adamant1 (talk) 22:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mauritius-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Weak keep, minus the spam. It is a secondary school and we normally regard secondary schools as notable. This article is frequently prone to promotional additions and I see a big chunk of them have slipped in since I last looked. In the past the puffery has been quite laughably over the top. This seems more run of the mill but it is still unreferenced promotion. I'll clear that stuff out and then we can get a better view of what remains. Also, I think this did have some independent references in the past. I'll try to see what happened to those. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

There was an RfC a few years ago that determined secondary schools aren't inherently notable anymore and there's been plenty of AfDs for secondary school since then that resulted in delete. Per the RfC "secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist, and are still subject to WP:N and WP:ORG." So in no are they normally regarded as notable. They still have to pass WP:NORG like every other type of organization. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. I looked at some old versions and it looks like I was wrong about there being independent refs in the past. There may be some hits in Google News to save it but I don't speak French. I'll switch to neutral for now. I've removed the puffery so at least that's something. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. At least the puffery is dealt with now if nothing else. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• Delete - No RS here to substantiate this as notable. As noted, schools aren't inheritently notable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delete There are no independent sources. A few years ago we decided to go from allowing any article on a top level secondary school that we could be sure really existed to allowing only articles that could be sourced to reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Wow, that RfC was 5 years ago. I had no idea it had been so long. Well in part because some people have claimed it includes a "do not proactively try to implement this" clause, so it has really had very little effect on either the level of secondary school articles we have, or the adequacy of the sourcing that they have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I always refer to it as being a few years ago because that's when it seems like people started to follow it. There was a good three years there after the RfC where it was mostly being ignored though. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

We may end up saying about the same thing about the RfC on Olympians not being default notable unless they won a medal. At least I am surprised we have not seen more deletion nominations on Olympians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Delete - WP:NORG appears to be the threshold, and from the sources presented we're not there. Chumpih ^t 20:12, 20 January 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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:39, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Andrey Kunets

Andrey Kunets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject fails WP:MUSICBIO. Took part in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2006 as a child singer and appears to have not pursued any notable endeavors since. Article was created in 2008 and has had no updates other than formatting for nearly 14 years. Relevant information already found on Contest's page as well as being suitable for Belarus in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest. Grk1011 (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination; fails WP:MUSICBIO Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delete This doesn't pass WP:MUSICBIO. Even there is no citations or references to verify it's notability. GaffarSofi96 (talk) 13:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:MUSICBIO. Insufficient and trivial coverage, there is literally just one citation, which does prove its notability.Juggyevil (talk) 14:46, 19 January 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 delete. It isn't substantially contested that the article is a mess of WP:OR. If a proper article on this topic is possible, it would probably need to be written from scratch based on reliable sources. Sandstein 07:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Alternative payments

Alternative payments (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Has been unsourced for 10 years. Appears to be all original research on whatever editors think counts as an alternative to credit cards (with no justifiable claim as to why credit cards are the gold standard everything needs to be alternative to in the first place...why not cash?). ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delete Unsourced and not encyclopedic. All of the stuff the article talks about is real stuff, but there's no sense that there's an article there about the general concept of alternative payments itself. I could imagine such an article existing, but I don't think there's any NEED for it to exist that would warrant keeping this as a starting point. PianoDan (talk) 00:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delete - No SIGCOV-quality references and the core definition is unsourced and isn't clearly natural: by defining alternative payments to be non-credit cards, the definition explicitly excludes cash. It's easy to find sources that define the term differently, e.g. for transactions that don't have a determinate monetary value. The content isn't of sufficient quality to look for an ATD. — Charles Stewart (talk) 00:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• Weak keep a quick Google search reveals that this exact term definitely exists (in fact, I just edited the nominated article to cite the first source that turned up). Even so, I definitely agree with User:PianoDan that the concept of "alternative payments" seems artificial, and I'm also not sure whether any of these sources that I've found meet WP:SIGCOV. Duckmather (talk) 00:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• The lead is an improvement on the version before it was submitted, in that the characterisation in the lead now better matches a source, but (i) you achieved this by changing the definition used in the article from one that excludes cash to one that includes it, (ii) the source actually calls them by the full name "alternative payment methods", not "alternative payments", so the source does not validate that actual term used in the article, and (iii) the source establishes that one body uses the term in this way but does not establish that the term is generally used in this way. I've no doubt that the article is talking about a meaningful phenomenon, rather I'm concerned that the article is setting out what is, for our purposes, a neologism,and is developed in an unencyclopediac way. The improvement you made does not go nearly far enough to change my opinion on this material. — Charles Stewart (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Charles Stewert puts it much better than I can, but this is the gist of my nomination. While Alternative music is a specific genre, and Alternative fuel refers to a class of non-conventual fuel sources, the content (and motivation?) for Alternative payments is like saying we need to have encyclopedia articles for anything out of whatever someone considers the norm ("alternative lawn care solutions" or "alternative shampoos" --ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:19, 22 January 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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Secure Mobile Payment Service

Secure Mobile Payment Service (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

No meaningful content or sources; defunct home site. ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• weak delete SEMOPS was a EU-funded project [25], but all google hits are from 2010s and it looks like nothing good came of it. Loew Galitz (talk) 20:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't look that notable yet. MaghrebiFalafel (talk) 15:28, 21 January 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 keep. Consensus is that he does indeed meet NMUSIC Star Mississippi 15:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Aksel Kankaanranta

Aksel Kankaanranta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Most notable for being selected to take part in Eurovision, however that appearance never materialized due to the cancellation of the contest. Subject fails to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO, as most coverage is related to Eurovision with largely trivial mentions or brief summaries across articles. Only recording as a solo artist, the selected entry, did not chart in home market. Grk1011 (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Keep - Subject is notable per point 9 of WP:NMUSIC ”Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition.” per second place in The Voice a high rated show and win in ESC national selection. And point 12, ”Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or television network.”. Also per WP:GNG. BabbaQ (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Winning or placing top 3 in The Voice (American TV series) (or even UK, Germany or other, may indeed meet MUSICBIO No. 9) but this was The Voice of Finland and is far from a notable national competition. The Finns did not even see fit to creating an article for him. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
    • There is an article about him on Finnish Wikipedia [26]. So in fact they do see it fit. BabbaQ (talk) 06:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• Keep - for the reason given of those who want to keep this article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• Keep. That is not how Eurovision works. In order to represent Finland, you win the Uuden Musiikin Kilpailu, which means something in itself. It's not merely a selection. Also, most relevant media would be in Finnish. Example, another one. /Julle (talk) 02:33, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• Keep. While the nomination was in good faith, it failed to grasp the sigcov that is shown in other Wikipedias; statements like "the Finns did not even see fit to creating an article for him" is also untrue. In addition to Kankaanranta's own music competition merits, he was a featuring artist on a charted #1 single in Finland [27] Geschichte (talk) 06:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination; Eurovision participation did not materialise and attempt to win UMK again were unsuccessful. In addition I feel calling on The Voice of Finland for notability would bring WP:REALITYSINGER into effect, which I don't believe have been satisfied with this article. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• Have added the fact that Aksel have a had a number 1 song on the Finnish singles chart. BabbaQ (talk) 09:02, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• "Attempt to win UMK again". So you recognize that he won once? Isn't that notable? And what about the sigcov in Finnish newspapers? Geschichte (talk) 09:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• It is notable as part of the preparations for Eurovision, which is why it is included in Finland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2020. The sigcov is about Finland at Eurovision, not specifically about the singer. To me, that's what the guideline means by trivial mentions of an individual. He's certainly a big part of the act, but that's why we have an article that talks about the act and details his involvement. There appears to be very little out there independent of this one event (and the same event the next year). Grk1011 (talk) 17:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - Aksel has had two charting songs on the Finnish music singles chart, one of them charting at number one. He covers WP:NMUSIC. BabbaQ (talk) 09:02, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• Twice he was a featured artist on another artist's single that charted [28]. He has not had a single or album chart as a solo artist. The part that gets me though, is that the song "Looking Back" that he won with at the 'notable event' did not chart. I believe that speaks to the magnitude, or lack thereof, of the accomplishment. Had he gone on to represent the nation at Eurovision, this would be a different story. Grk1011 (talk) 17:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• Keep - as per reasons noted above - qualification for Eurovision to represent Finland is notable in this case - and also on the basis there is Finnish language sources for RS. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:58, 19 January 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 keep. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Aoba47 (talk) 19:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

My Bra

My Bra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I believe this article fails WP:NSONG because I could not find any evidence that this song has received significant coverage from third-party, reliable sources. The coverage that I could find was rather limited and not enough in my opinion to justify a separate article. Aoba47 (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - I feel like there's some pretty mainstream RS coverage already in the article. Like the Billboard article. Not sure I agree that it's not significant when the song is the focal point of the headline... Sergecross73 msg me 23:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Those are only a few sources. While they may be about the song, I do not think they are enough to constitute significant coverage. When I did research on this song to potentially expand the article, I could not find significant coverage beyond a few articles written about the song. Aoba47 (talk) 00:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• I think you're setting the bar a bit high here. All we need is a "few" sources to satisfy the WP:GNG, and these sources are definitely more than a passing mention... Sergecross73 msg me 01:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• We just have different perspectives on it. I will leave this discussion open to get other people's opinions. Aoba47 (talk) 01:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• Withdraw: @Sergecross73: Upon further reflection, I will actually like to request a withdrawal on this AFD nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 02:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you for reconsidering. I appreciate it. You can actually close your own nomination as long as you do it before any dissenting opinions come in. (If someone jumps in and says "delete" first then we've got to go through the whole process.) Sergecross73 msg me 19:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you for the response and for your kindness. I will close the AFD momentarily and I hope I did not come across as rude in my earlier comments. I appreciate your insight and you are right in that I was setting the bar too high. Aoba47 (talk) 19:17, 18 January 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 redirect to The Messiah (2007 film). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Ahmad Soleimani Nia

Ahmad Soleimani Nia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No evidence of any SIGCOV from reliable independent sources or claim of notability in the article. Non-notable actor, may be WP:TOOSOON. Brayan ocaner (talk) 14:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Brayan ocaner (talk) 14:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Brayan ocaner (talk) 14:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Brayan ocaner (talk) 14:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose plentiful sources in Farsi. In what way is an Iranian actor not notable because of lack of English sources? Naturally most of them relate to his big role playing Jesus in the Iranian film The Messiah (2007 film) but appears he has also done some TV work. Even if that 2007 film - in which he had the lead role - was the only film he ever made, then the plentiful books mentioning the film and his portrayal alone make him notable per WP:GNG 14:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Can you mention sources that cover him significantly (not passing a mention) in Farsi? Brayan ocaner (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I did some search, it looks like all about the only film he was starring, hence my merge vote below. Loew Galitz (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• redirect to The Messiah (2007 film). It looks like a single-role actor. Loew Galitz (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delete the movie itself is not notable let alone an actor in the movie (Redirect is also a good option) Mardetanha (talk) 12:32, 21 January 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 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. RL0919 (talk) 20:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

The Company (production company)

The Company (production company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Completely unsourced since 2013; does not meet WP:NCOMPANY, WP:GNG. I can find no coverage of this company. Admittedly, searching for "The Company" is rather difficult, considering the generic name. The only indication that I can find that this company even exists is from their Facebook page. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 18:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 18:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 18:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 18:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:16, 17 January 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 delete. RL0919 (talk) 20:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Madhumita G Das

Madhumita G Das (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Insufficient reliable sources to show that this person meets WP:NACTOR. I moved the article to Draft:Madhumita G Das, but author recreated the article again without working on the Draft. I indicated the problem in a PROD, but the PROD was removed without explaination. Singularity42 (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Singularity42 (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Singularity42 (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delete: Nothing to show roles are significant for WP:NACTOR, not enough to meet WP:GNG, article does exist in draft space, but creator also created in main. Recommend deletion from main space and creator director to work on draft and WAIT for an AFC reviewer to accept the article. Ravensfire (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delete No indication of meeting NACTOR or GNG. Cannot anything significant in my search. -- Ab207 (talk) 12:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom, fails WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 13:14, 18 January 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 delete. It's not contested that the article's contents are substantially unverifiable because the cited sources are inappropriate; in which case WP:V mandates deletion. Sandstein 08:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

List of equipment of the Ethiopian National Defence Force

List of equipment of the Ethiopian National Defence Force (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This entire article was created on original research. There might be one or two citations saying Ethiopia bought a tank or something (hard to say, title sounds good but the citations won't load), but all the rest of the citations are about the weapons or equipment, or weapons in general, but not Ethiopia or ENDF having them or acquiring them. The inclusion criteria is "ever, maybe" because of such language as "may have been in service over the years". There is no indication that the list-subject has been covered by multiple independent reliable sources (WP:NLIST). Platonk (talk) 10:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Platonk (talk) 10:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. Platonk (talk) 10:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Clearly this needs significant improvement, but I'm not sure WP:TNT is the right call. For instance, I believe ref #6 is supposed to link to this SIPRI database that would seem like a reasonable source. The report of transfers with Ethiopia as recipient is rather long (10 printed pages), so I didn't check whether the cited contents match those in the database. I don't have access to #1 to determine whether it indeed only discusses the weapons systems in general, or also includes Ethiopia as an operator. Platonk, do you have access to the Jane's book to check whether it includes operator countries? -Ljleppan (talk) 13:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
  • No access to Jane's. The source you provided is interesting, but explains only the 8 times that cite-6 is used; doesn't explain any of the other uncited line items I spot-checked. 10 pages long only if 1950-2020, but 3 pages for 2000-2020. With a country that has had so many civil wars, how can a "purchase list" spanning 7 decades mean ENDF has it, or had it? What about loss of equipment through war, use, age, theft or sales? If a country is currently split between 2 or more armed and warring factions (see Tigray War currently in play), which side has the equipment? One cannot say just because 'Ethiopia' bought it that the Ethiopian National Defense Force has, or ever had, it? Is a country's list of historic purchases of equipment the same as their current list of assets ("List of equipment of the ENDF")? I assert no. Would a famous person's or notable organization's list of purchases of anything be worthy of a Wikipedia article? No, you'd argue WP:UNDUE. Same thing here. Where are the sources to what ENDF has in present time (even any prior 'present time')? Or rename the article Military equipment ever sold to Ethiopia. There are 15 similar cruft pages made by the same editor last year. Platonk (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 17:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• delete as non-maintainable. Wikipedia is not a catalog. Loew Galitz (talk) 21:05, 17 January 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Thanks to StonyBrook for finding the additional sources. (non-admin closure) Singularity42 (talk) 17:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Ron Yitzchok Eisenman

Ron Yitzchok Eisenman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

After sorting out the WP:PEACOCK language in this article, at the end of the day I don't believe the sources cited are reliable sources that support notability. Majority of references are written by the subject himself. Others are blogs are other non-reliable sources. Singularity42 (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Singularity42 (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Singularity42 (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Singularity42 (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Oaktree b (talk) 00:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• Keep. After spending time cleaning up this article, I believe a case can be made for not deleting it. While it is true that the sourcing can hardly be called 'significant', I would argue that it could at least be called reliable, and independent of the subject. I am referring to the the New York Jewish Week/The Times of Israel and the Intermountain Jewish News (Denver/paywalled). Besides for being a long time influential synagogue rabbi, author and journalist, the sources point to the subject being an unusually outspoken advocate for sexual abuse victims going back almost 20 years. That indicates that the subject is not just another run-of-the mill pulpit leader, since historically this has been a controversial position for an Orthodox rabbi to take (until very recently). The Chaim Walder affair in December of last year has garnered the subject additional coverage in this regard. This source, while containing primary material, I did find it to be at least non self-serving, providing some insight into the character. I would also point the reader to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marvin Goldstein for some guidance. A badly sourced article about a musician was apparently brought up to WP:NBASIC standards using similar minor independent publications from around the US. Particularly relevant to our case is the statement made there by a Delete !voter (emphasis mine): If this was a biography of a religious figure than it would be a different story, but for a minor musician much stronger coverage is need to ensure encyclopedic quality. Between the pulpit, books/articles written, and the abuse advocacy, I think there is enough to get this subject over the top. StonyBrook (talk) 00:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

That was great work rescuing the article, StonyBrook! I'm probably prepared to withdraw my nomination. Before I do so, I just wanted to see if Oaktree b had any objections before I withdraw it. Singularity42 (talk) 14:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Keep :Intermountain Jewish News, Baltimore Jewish Life, The Jewish News coverage satisfies GNG. Djflem (talk) 17:27, 20 January 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 delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Warpath (novel)

Warpath (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unnotable book, fails WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. No reviews found, other than user-generated ones. Pilaz (talk) 16:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 16:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 16:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 16:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delete, no notability. Geschichte (talk) 06:44, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delete, fails NBOOK. Technical note: incorrectly listed on "list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions" (this is a real book, not fictional). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks! Pilaz (talk) 02:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Delete, does not meet WP:NBOOKS, zero reviews found. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:46, 20 January 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 delete. I have pasted the discussion from the talk page below. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Pyranol

Pyranol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No sources, orphan, hardly any views on these non-notable chemicals. Prior PROD was contested by Spinningspark, see Talk:Pyranol for details Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delete: Same argument as last time. It's an ill-conceived class. Enols like this will exist in equilibrium with the corresponding pyrones, with the pyrone-form being strongly favoured. They're not notable in of themselves, although the parent pyrone may be. --Project Osprey (talk) 11:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delete per Project Osprey. Misleading and unhelpful collection of structures. Pyranol is apparently a tradename for a polychlorinated biphenyl dielectric, but I think redirecting there might lead to confusion. The search results are pretty clean, the PCB page and the wikitionary entry which relates to the organic chemistry term. I think that's how we should leave things for now. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delete: As a retired chemist, I fully agree with the comments above. --Bduke (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delete per my comments at Talk:Pyranol#Notability/sourcing. Closing admin: propose importing that talkpage section into this AFD, as it appears to be a detailed discussion, if the article gets deleted. DMacks (talk) 10:38, 19 January 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 speedy delete. Bbb23 deleted page on 17 January. (non-admin closure) Worldbruce (talk) 18:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

When Your Father Gets Angry

When Your Father Gets Angry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Speedy deletion does not apply to film, but this would be a candidate if there was a criteria. Lack of sources covering this single person four minute short. Mvqr (talk) 16:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:NFILM. No reliable sources supporting notability.
• Delete. No attempt to prove WP:N.--Tysska (talk) 17:51, 17 January 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Rohan Prasad

Rohan Prasad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable youth footballer. Fails WP:NFOOTY. The only reference provided does not return a result. Searching the source site for Rohan Prasad only returns high school teams. Cabayi (talk) 13:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 13:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 13:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 13:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Delete It is not notable and does not pass either WP:GNG.--Tysska (talk) 14:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delete, fails NFOOTY and GNG.--Mvqr (talk) 15:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. This is eligible for A7, there is no credible claim of significance there - the random IP removing the tag that the author removed multiple times is rather suspect... Girth Summit _(blether) 16:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delete per User:Reviewing Footballers. SN54129 16:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

That's a strange reason, since Reviewing Footballers is the one fighting for this article. Geschichte (talk) 06:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• Delete, does not meet any Wikipedia guideline. Any further single-purpose accounts showing up to remove the AFD template from this article, will be blocked indefinitely on sight. Geschichte (talk) 06:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:NFOOTY. Lack of coverage in Media. Every footballer cannot have a Wikipedia article. This is not social media. Venkat TL (talk) 11:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delete - can't find any WP:SIGCOV, no claim to notability Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 18:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delete Fails all Wikipedia notability guideline Footy777 (talk) 19:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delete Completely fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• Snow delete since the person clearly fails Fails WP:NFOOTY, WP:GNG, WP:NFOOTBALL Etc. Etc. and I really doubt this will be kept since there's zero keep votes. So it might as well be snow deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delete Fails both WP:GNG & WP:NFOOTYJuggyevil (talk) 15:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, per all comments above and nomination. It's snowing hard here. Spf121188 (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delete: I concur with all above. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. GauchoDude (talk) 14:00, 20 January 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 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. RL0919 (talk) 18:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Apur Sangsar (TV series)

Apur Sangsar (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable show. Most of the sources are unreliable. Shinnosuke15, 13:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shinnosuke15, 13:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shinnosuke15, 13:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delete: Tellychakkar.com is not a reliable source, and cannot be depended on. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 09:30, 24 January 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 Withdrawn. He now meets #2 of WP:NSKATE. I still can't find in-depth coverage for the GNG, but it has only been a few days and in any case, it doesn't seem correct to continue this discussion when most of the delete !votes were from before his highest medal placement. (non-admin closure) — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 18:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Spencer Howe

Spencer Howe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No significant coverage to meet the WP:GNG and no evidence that he meets WP:NSPORTS in that he didn't win his national championships. — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 03:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
• Howe has been selected for the 2022 Four Continents, so he has a possibility to meet criteria #2 at WP:NSKATE. Arguably, he also meets #4 (competing at a senior Grand Prix event) because he competed at the 2020 Skate America. Even though it was majorly affected by COVID, the ISU still considers it a GP. So, I think there's no point in deleting this article right away, although it may have been a mistake to publish it before Howe inarguably met the criteria. Hergilei (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@Hergilei Draftifying the article might be a solution in the interim. The fact remains that he doesn't meet the GNG criteria, and unless new sources come about, should not have an article. There just isn't any source that cover the guy except to say "he exists and he competed at these few places", of these, none has significant coverage. Not enough is available to write an encyclopedia article on a person, only a sports statistics page. There are plenty of those elsewhere. — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 23:24, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:NSPORTS Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 06:09, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Draftify Changed because of lack of reliable, secondary sources per WP:GNG it probably shouldn't be in article space. But it's likely WP:TOOSOON per both Hergilei and Insertcleverphrasehere's comments, so draft space seems appropriate until the next competitions have occurred. Chumpih ^t 20:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep given the update via User:Hergilei seems OK to keep now. Chumpih ^t 18:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
• Update Howe has won silver at the 2022 Four Continents Figure Skating Championships. He now clearly meets the criteria for inclusion. Hergilei (talk) 18:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delete Not enough here for now to satisfy WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 14:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • He more than fulfills #2 at WP:NSPORTS, figure skating section: Have competed in the free skate at the following ISU Championships: World Junior Figure Skating Championships, European Figure Skating Championships, Four Continents Figure Skating Championships". It would be highly unusual to delete a medalist at one of these events. I can't think of any medalist who's been deemed not notable enough. Hergilei (talk) 15:20, 24 January 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Nidhish Kutty

Nidhish Kutty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Worked in only 3 movies, not significant coverages. PQR01 (talk) 07:13, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:NACTOR, as he has only starred in one notable production, and fails WP:GNG as I could find no SIGCOV in reliable sources about him. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:52, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
• Keep He is famous locally and there are several articles in tamil, which appears frequently on this boy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenbangalore (talk • contribs) 06:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delete: No indication of meeting NACTOR or GNG. -- Ab207 (talk) 07:43, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Delete: fails WP:GNG - SUN EYE 1 15:48, 22 January 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 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!} 22:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Namashi Chakraborty

Namashi Chakraborty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not meet WP:NACTOR as the person is yet to debut. Also lacks significant coverage to meet GNG. -- Ab207 (talk) 07:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 07:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 07:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Delete until film releases. DareshMohan (talk) 01:30, 23 January 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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

PropertyPro.ng

PropertyPro.ng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:PROMO article about a company with no media coverage beyond corporate actions. Heavy editing by COI accounts, and lacking improvement re. notability and promotional quality for a year after my contested prod. FalconK (talk) 07:45, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 07:45, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 07:45, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delete — doesn’t meet WP:NCORP and WP:SIRS cannot be applied. WP:ORGDEPTH is not met also. Celestina007 (talk) 12:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

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 13:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. I have been unable to find any references that meet NCORP criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:31, 24 January 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 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. Star Mississippi 15:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Faisal Rashid (actor)

Faisal Rashid (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Beyond cast lists, role announcements and an agency interview, I couldn't find any source, let alone reliable ones, covering the subject. hemantha (brief) 09:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. hemantha (brief) 09:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. hemantha (brief) 09:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Delete: No evidence of meeting WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:34, 17 January 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 delete. and SALT. Holy god. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Kameelion

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Kameelion
• Articles for deletion/Kameelion (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Kameelion (musician)

Kameelion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Very unclear where notability lies. This appears to rely on WP:BAND which also requires that WP:CHART is satisfied. The only valid mention is an assertion about a chart position of 67 in the Belgium charts. There is no ref that substantiates that and WP:BEFORE does not reveal any such evidence. All the rest are trivial, social media mentions and passing mentions and associations with better know bands and people. Even the local north Wales sources are very weak. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   13:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   13:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   13:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   13:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - See the discussions at the earlier AfDs. Under his stage name he was already deleted (at least) twice, he was deleted once under a misspelled version of his birth name, and he was speedy deleted at least 6 times under various other versions of his birth name. Those were all more than ten years ago, and he apparently has a few more achievements since then, but I suspect a dogged effort to use Wikipedia for promotional purposes no matter how many decades go by. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delete and Salt all imaginable variations of his name. Per my comment above, there are a whole bunch of previous AfDs for this person in which the logic advanced by all "delete" voters still stands. Mr. Kameelion knows how to promote himself on social media but everything to be found is about his own quest for celebrity rather than his few actual achievements. This article is ref-bombed with tangential and indirect social media references to other people and things. For example, Mr. Kameelion once got some social media clicks by saying he was sad about the band Viola Beach (deadly car accident), and that is stated here as some sort of achievement with a source about Viola Beach and not himself. Everything else follows the same pattern. Also, most of this article was written by Ashcroft18 who has done almost nothing else in Wikipedia. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delete and salt per Doomsdayer520. If there were a reliable source to prove a song of the subject's charted, maybe this could be kept. What this article has is unproved assertions and even those assertions of notability are at the very bottom end of what we could accept. The fact that this article has been deleted before is proof of a promotional effort, hence the need to salt the title and let the promoters know that the home office in San Francisco has to be bought off to escape AfD. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:57, 17 January 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 withdrawn. Sources found during the discussion clearly show that this is in fact notable - thanks to ReaderofthePack for finding what I couldn't! (non-admin closure) firefly ( t · c ) 17:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Pool Party Massacre

Pool Party Massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Contested PROD - I can't find any coverage of this movie beyond a couple of review blogs (that don't amount to being reliable sources). Article is entirely unsourced at present to boot. firefly ( t · c ) 09:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. firefly ( t · c ) 09:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Keep. I looked and while there are indeed some random blogs, there are also reviews in places considered to be RS per WP:HORROR/S, such as Rue Morgue, Pop Horror, and Horror Society. They're niche, but seen as reliable. It needs further expansion, but it looks to pass NFILM. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• There's also, very surprisingly, a review from Library Journal. They typically don't review or cover films of this nature, let alone horror film festivals, so this was a surprise to find. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:HEY. Geschichte (talk) 21:54, 21 January 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 keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Liu Siqi

Liu Siqi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Appears devoid of notability, case of WP:NOTINHERITED WWGB (talk) 06:24, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 06:24, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 06:24, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
• Keep NOTINHERITED isn't applicable here -- it relates to articles that exist solely on the basis of "subject is somewhere in the line of descent for an inherited title" or similar, without any evidence of significant coverage. It doesn't rule out the existence of articles for people who have significant coverage because of their connections to others. Subject of the article passes GNG through the substantial number of obituaries that have come out in the Chinese press following her recent death, both cited in the article and clear on a web search. Vaticidalprophet 16:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Keep - Notable and many independent reliable Chinese sources are available following her death on 7th January, 2022. VincentGod11 (talk) 15:05, 20 January 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 keep. And move to History of Programming Languages (conference). The relevance of the sources provided by Djm-leighpark remains uncontested. Sandstein 08:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

History of Programming Languages

History of Programming Languages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not notable organization. Extremely outdated and full of jargon. De-prodding comment seems to have nothing to do with the notability or lack thereof. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:37, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:37, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

ACM and IEEE Computer Society are the two top Computer Science professional societies in the world. ACM sponsors HOPL through its SIGPLAN special interest group. SIGPLAN sponsors most of the top professonal conferences in Programming Languages. I guess one could argue ACM is "not notable organization", but ACM sponsors the Turing Award, which is often called the Nobel Prize in CS. HOPL has indeed been an unusual conference series, it mixes CS professionals with historians to provide first-hand histories of some of the most important artifacts in our modern world. Some of the language names sound like jargon, but they form the foundation of everything that is computer/internet related. The material is not "out of date", but I did update the final presentation date of HOPL IV. Deleting this page will not destroy the history of these foundational technologies, but it will make it harder for new students of computers and history to find them. N2cjn (talk) 02:28, 9 January 2022 (UTC)n2cjn

• Delete: The UMN archives source provides useful information on the scope of the event. But there is no indication of notability or significance, based on the journal articles. Additionally, conferences of this kind tend to have at least a few reliable, independent sources from mass news media. Multi7001 (talk) 02:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• Delete. No independent in-depth sources, no article... In addition, including the whole line-up of speakers is undue, such information belongs on the conference's own website. --Randykitty (talk) 09:26, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: in the unlikely event this survives AfD, move to HOPL, which is currently the redirect, as it's extremely confusing to readers to have two articles that differ only by the capitalisation of middle-words, this article looking very much as though it's going to talk about the legitimate subject matter of the other, History of programming languages. If there's a serious risk that readers will fail to search for HOPL, put a hat-note on the legitimate article. Elemimele (talk) 12:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delete: While it's excellent that this conference happens, it appears not to be of sufficient notability for inclusion, failing WP:GNG. Chumpih ^t 19:34, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  Keep and move I'm swayed by De Guerre's enthusiastic comments. Chumpih ^t 18:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Strong keep, move to HOPL and clean up. It's impossible to under-state how big a deal HOPL is, in the programming language community. I don't think we have a rule on how notable a conference has to be, but this one should easily pass WP:GNG on citation count alone. It's a very unusual conference, because it only happens every 15 or so years. Papers are invitation-only, and merely being asked to submit is a huge honour. Unfortunately, you wouldn't know any of this from the article. De Guerre (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Unfortunately, your !vote just seems to be a strong case of WP:ILIKEIT. Are there any reliable sources that are independent of the subject that discuss it in-depth? And moving to "HOPL" is not a good idea, we don't use initialisms as article titles. --Randykitty (talk) 09:31, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

• Apart from hundreds of citations to papers presented, as is usual for anything of this level of significance in a given field, I don't know what would constitute RS for an academic conference. What independent sources discuss, in depth, Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, or Computational Complexity Conference, or North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics? This is an honest question, because I don't believe WP has guidelines or a policy on this. The only think I can think of is that the truly significant conferences get reported in other journals of the field by different publishers (e.g. IEEE Annals of the History of Computing [29]). De Guerre (talk) 12:26, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment The nomination refers to HOPL as an "organization". Even at the time of nomination, the article clearly stated it is a conference. Assuming good faith, perhaps nom genuinely misunderstood what the article is actually about? De Guerre (talk) 12:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
• Additional comment On further reflection, I agree with Randykitty that "HOPL" is not a good rename. History of Programming Languages (conference) would be much better. De Guerre (talk) 07:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

• Keep (plus rename to something else): per De Guerre and note I also agree with the rename. Observe the nom. is slagging off my dePROD because of failure to understand and zooms off to AfD without asking to make the snide comment without apparent careful checking of his nom. There are sources out there: "Nofre, D., Priestley, M., & Alberts, G. (2014). When technology became language: The origins of the linguistic conception of computer programming, 1950-1960. Technology and Culture, 55(1), 40-75"; "King, K. N. (1993). The history of programming languages. Dr.Dobb's Journal, 18(8), 18."; "Reviews. (1984). Annals of the History of Computing, 6(1), 74-80. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/MAHC.1984.10004"; "Azad, A., & Smith, D. T. (2014). A debate over the teaching of a legacy programming language in an information technology (IT) program. Journal of Information Technology Education.Innovations in Practice, 13, 111-127. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.28945/2088"; "Sammet, J. E. (2000). The real creators of cobol. IEEE Software, 17(2), 30-32. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/52.841602" .... Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
• Keep. Not sure what good the rename would do, but if that is what it takes... W Nowicki (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Keep and move - Notability established by amount of citations found on google scholar. I support renaming it to HOPL, which seems to be the way it's referred to in the quick scan I gave of the academic papers anyway, but I would not mind History of Programming Languages (conference) if other editors feel that would be better. Fieari (talk) 07:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• I would also be equally happy with History of Programming Languages (conference) instead of HOPL if preferred. The reason for the reaname, W Nowicki is that an article already exists entitled History of programming languages, which is about (unsurprisingly) the history of programming languages! Elemimele (talk) 13:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Keep and rename to History of Programming Languages (conference) with a aka note at the top of the page itself.Gusfriend (talk) 02:13, 25 January 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 keep. RL0919 (talk) 06:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Red Hill School

Red Hill School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Primary schools usually do not get articles, and this article shows why: The only independent sources are totally unsubstantial: The 1960 article from The Canberra Times is less than 100 words long' the Riotact article is from a community newspaper and is about a parking fee dispute.. DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Keep There are hundreds of references here (check filter options place:ACT and category:article) which will support an in-depth article covering the history of the school, back to its construction, and issues faced by the school over time. I think therefore romps it in on WP:NEXIST. (There are about 2,000 references there (check place:ACT only), but many of these are very routine.) (Australia related AfDs which have any hint of a historical period, must include TROVE in their WP:BEFORE). Aoziwe (talk) 09:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Keep There is ample newspaper articles available (I've added some to the article) to establish notability per WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 20:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

*Weak delete One of the "references" in the article is literally to another Wikipedia article. Outside of that there's multiple primary references and a bunch of extremely trivial news article referenced to a single local outlet, The Canberra Times. So unless I missed it there's nothing here that would justify keeping the article. That said, I'm going with weak delete because of the things mentioned by Aoziwe in their "vote." Which if true makes it likely someone can scrap enough together to make this notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Keep - the archive linked by Aoziwe includes a lot of trivial coverage, but there's enough substantial coverage in there as well to justify an article. Separately, while I don't specifically remember reviewing this article, apparently I did, and despite not previously being aware of the Trove website Aoziwe linked here, I evidently came across enough coverage when doing a BEFORE to justify to myself approving the article despite the then-current revision's deficiencies. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Keep, for the reasons those who want to keep this article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• Keep I looked into this some more after my initial vote and I think it's worth keeping now, but with the caveat that clearly bad references should be cleaned up from the article. AfD isn't cleanup though. So I'm not going to give the current state of the article that much weight since there seems to be enough sources at this point to improve things with. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• Keep, although some of the numerous references available may be deemed trivial/routine there are enough to meet WP:GNG. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:29, 23 January 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 redirect to List of rampage killers. Merging back is unopposed and can be done from the history of the target article. Sandstein 08:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

List of rampage killers (other incidents)

List of rampage killers (other incidents) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article was recently restored despite being turned into a redirect earlier following an unopposed merge request (which I took part in). I'll just repeat what LaundryPizza03 said before in the merge request: "By analogy to WP:OCMISC for categories, we shouldn't spin out lists of entries that don't fit into other sub-lists by type of incident." The content can be merged back into the main List of rampage killers article. Love of Corey (talk) 02:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Justiyaya 05:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Justiyaya 05:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:09, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
• Merge as the initial proposer, and then protect so this is not restored. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 04:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Merge back to List of rampage killers. There is no possibility for random miscellaneous incidents to be discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources because they are, by definition, things that do not fit into a group or set. The correct list to contain these is the parent list, which does satisfy NLIST. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:02, 24 January 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 delete. RL0919 (talk) 05:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Khaitan Public School, Ghaziabad

Khaitan Public School, Ghaziabad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I can see very little that is an article about the school itself, but a great deal of weight in attacks on the school. The only neutral aspect of this article that is about the school per se is the unreferenced history section "It was established in 2001 by liquor businessman G. N. Khaitan who ran distillery Radico Khaitan which manufactures alcohol, Indian Made Foreign Liquor and country liquor. The school is affiliated with C.B.S.E board. Even the lede is attacking the school.

This leads me to one of two conclusions:

1. That the school is not of itself notable
2. That the article is not about the school but is about controversies surroudning the school

The first conclusion is a reason for deletion. I believe we need to compare this school against current guidelines for the inclusion of schools, broadly that it should pass WP:NCORP. As expressed here it does not pass.

The second conclusion depends on the first. If the school is not notable, how can the controversies surrounding it be notable? Indeed it has become a campaign page against the school, As a campaign page, an attack page, it is vulnerable to speedy deletion.

A better solution, if and only if the school can be confirmed as notable is to roll back to the last version where this is shown, all the while considering the level of protection to be given. The article has become a WP:BATTLEGROUND with factions fighting for and against the controversies. Indeed this deletion discussion is likely to be packed by factions. I have deployed the notice about this as I open the discussion

I would suggest serious consideration by the closing admin of full protection after determining the last neutral version and rolling back to it if it is determined that this article be kept. If it is determined that it be deleted I suggest consideration of salting this and similar titles. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 09:19, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 09:19, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 09:19, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 09:19, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I think school is notable and passes WP:GNG and WP:NORG. The tone can be improved in the article but deletion is not a solution. DMySon (talk) 10:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
• Keep but reduce the controversy to one line, and protect the article. The nominator is quite right: this article has been turned into a campaign document. We're supposed to summarise what sources say about a (notable) fight, not roll up our sleeves and join in! Overall: (1) School notability is ill-defined, with only a failed guideline Wikipedia:Notability_(schools). But it's possible that large secondary schools should be considered notable anyway; (2) Unfortunately schools tend to attract national press attention only when things go wrong; otherwise they get trivial local stories of small significance, meaning that an article truly based on secondary sources will often be negatively-biased; (3) it's possible that this argument about fees will, eventually, remain notable, and that this school might be a key player, so it's premature to delete the entire school; (4) the article has some useful stuff (info-box, history) that should remain. So overall, I'd say get the controversy down to a line and keep the article, and wait to see whether the fight is more than a storm in a teacup. Protection is a good idea. It'd be great to have an Alumni list, if anyone can find any (I couldn't; there is a Miss India, but she comes from a similarly-named but different school). Elemimele (talk) 11:34, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
• Comment This original article was in a disastrous state after all the vandal attacks in the past, I tried in stages to create some neutrality in this article (with the addition of the infobox, with new information about the school, as well as deleting the information without references). You can see the version [30], I have studied dozens of articles about schools Cambridge School Indirapuram, Central Hindu Girls School, Delhi Public School, Azaad Nagar, to find out what an article may contain that has 80% vandalism and 20% neutral text. I am of the opinion that in the current format the article can be deleted conformable WP:ATTACK.--Grigorie77 (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC) (comment from a blocked user. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 08:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC))
• Delete due to the lack of notability and the fact that it's clearly an WP:ATTACK article. Maybe someone could argue it's notable due to the references currently in it, but I don't know how there can be a none WP:ATTACK article based on them and I couldn't find anything about it that is neutral. Let alone enough to balance the article out to not be extremely negatively slanted. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:26, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delete I don't think this school passes WP:NORG. It appears like a bank that gets into news when there's some robbery. How else does this school try to address WP:NORG requirements? ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 08:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: just tried to add non-controversial text to the entity's page with sources. Segregated all controversies related text in one segment. Somebody who is a native, having local knowledge, should try to streamline the controversies segment by cross verifying with native sources. - Hatchens (talk) 12:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 12:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Delete Clearly an attack article. I might have considered speedy deletion as such.. DGG ( talk )
• Delete The school is not a notable one. Also after seeing the article talk page, I noted that the school management got some of the news updated after 13 years of their publication. For example check the original news published in 2009 original news which was modified to suit schools need just recently modified news. Similarly all other news critical to school have been modified or deleted. Also a quick look at school's website and social media handles one can see that user:Akhaitan71 is Vice Chairman of the school and User:Vidhan_Sundriyal handles social media marketing of the school. Similarly the critical accounts belong to the parents. If the page is retained then the battle may start again.2409:4050:2D87:9E7:1BCB:809E:65D7:D599 (talk) 18:21, 19 January 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 redirect to List of people in Playboy 2000–2009#2007. ✗plicit 11:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Heather Rene Smith

Heather Rene Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Biography for a non-notable playmate model. damiens.rf 02:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. damiens.rf 02:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. damiens.rf 02:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. damiens.rf 02:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. damiens.rf 02:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of people in Playboy 2000–2009#2007. Redirects are cheap. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• Redirect per Clarityfiend. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:29, 18 January 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

The Beltanes

The Beltanes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not notable. Lots of OR and crappy, unverifiable sources. A source that documents a comedian played at a club does not document that the band played at that club. That's the kind of crap we have here. It was vandalism (removed here) at the Eva Cassidy article that alerted me to this article. -- Valjean (talk) 01:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails GNG, largely unsourced, and unverifiable sources for the rest. -- Valjean (talk) 01:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delete, local band that never produced an album, lacks significant coverage. Pikavoom ^Talk 08:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delete. Wholly non-notable by Wikipedia standards. RobinCarmody (talk) 18:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delete - There is nothing in the article that would suggest the band achieved anything like the level of notability that would be expected for there to be an article on them on Wikipeida. Dunarc (talk) 23:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Fails GNG. --Donniediamond (talk) 14:45, 21 January 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 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 05:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Living Los Sures

Living Los Sures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG. A non-notable neighborhood/film project within NYC, with no reliable sources found to establish said notability. Also reads as a promotional piece. Tinton5 (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 16:06, 20 January 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 redirect to Languages of South Asia. Content can be merged from the history as desired. Sandstein 08:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Languages of the Indian subcontinent

Languages of the Indian subcontinent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

As made clear from this discussion, there isn't scope for a separate article from Languages of South Asia. This should be redirected there. – Uanfala (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
• Pings to participants in the last discussion: Austronesier, Usedtobecool, Tamzin, BawaseerKhwaja. – Uanfala (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Thank you, Uanfala! The original author said that they were writing about Indic languages which they say include only two of the language families of "South Asia". I don't have the expertise to comment on that. But I would think such an article, if it's a good idea, should be written at Indic languages. That is if it would be necessary to split it from Languages of South Asia which, one assumes, would devote a large proportion to the same Indic languages. Languages of South Asia currently has sections on countries but nothing else though the lead image shows the language families of South Asia which do not adhere to national boundaries. Perhaps that article needs expanding or reorganising to make it into a proper language article. Otherwise, Language families of South Asia would appear to be the missing counterpart to the existing article, which would likely again make Languages of the Indian subcontinent redundant. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:05, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

  The article that covers the language families of South Asia is Languages of South Asia (I wouldn't even recommend creating Language families of South Asia as a redirect: we don't have any other redirects of this kind [31]). – Uanfala (talk) 14:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect as an unnecessary WP:POVFORK. In many definitions, South Asia and Indian subcontinent are coterminous, and if they are used differently, this only affects (roughly speaking) the inclusion of Afghanistan. This potential difference in range does not warrant a separate article, especially since Afghanistan linguistically blends into the Indian subcontinent (in the narrow sense). As I have observed in the preceding discussion, the article somehow heavily leans on the concept of "Indic languages". This is however a vague term, ranging from an alternative name for the Indo-Aryan languages to a collective term for the languages of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka, and is also employed a term for a "language grouping" in the fringe dabblings of Subhash Kak (an academic without credentials in linguistics) cited in the lead of the article.

The lede also contains untenable errors such as the statement excluding Austro-Asiatic languages (which are firmly entrenched in the areal linguistics of the Indian subcontinent). There is no scholarly definition of Indic that makes them "less Indic" than Indo-Aryan or Dravidian languages. –Austronesier (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

• Keep or move. Like Usedtobecool has pointed out above, there is still confusion as to what the title of the page should be. Since South Asia and Indian subcontinent are almost considered the same, I understand the point that the page feels like an unnecessary fork; moving the page under a better title could be a good option. My major point of concern is that all our discussions still do not answer the question of why there is a lot of good literature mentioning Indic in the context of Indo-Aryan and Dravidian instead of just Indo-Aryan, as can be easily seen by browsing https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=indic+languages . I think that the discussions are not yet concrete enough, and should continue on the Talk page before converging about the redirection or moving to another page, especially to ensure someone does not come-up with this confusion again and recreates the same thing. Thank you! BawaseerKhwaja (talk) 05:09, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Most citations for "Indic languages" in Google Scholar are from papers in Computational Linguistics written by Indian scholars. I can't see that these papers explicitly restrict "Indic" to Indo-Aryan (IA) and Dravidian. Their actual scope might indeed eventually turn out to include only IA and Dravidian languages, but that's because they apply their methods to the most widely spoken languages in the subcontinent. Tibeto-Burmese (TB) and Austro-Asiatic (AA) languages simply cannot numerically compete with the "big ones" like Hindi, Bengali, Tamil and Telugu. So the apparent "exclusion" of TB and AA languages from papers about "Indic" is just a demographic artefact. –Austronesier (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Probably you are right. I have made an edit in the article now mentioning other related families as well as a possibility. Please feel free to edit. BawaseerKhwaja (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Delete for multiple reasons. (1)Per nominator, the article can be merged with Languages of South Asia, which is more general in nature. (2) The title is not neutral. It is focusing on India. If kept, it will be a potential source for vandilism. I suggest to avoid the phrase "Indian subcontinent" in general to describe other neighbouring countries. (3) Article is incomplete because it fails to list cover all the "indic" languages. (4) The article is erronous; for example Nepali is spoken in Bhutan and China(sothern Tibet) as well. nirmal (talk) 10:50, 20 January 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 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:27, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Beyond: An African Surf Documentary

Beyond: An African Surf Documentary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable documentary film, lacking significant coverage by independent sources per WP:NF and WP:GNG BOVINEBOY2008 18:24, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
•  Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2021-10 ✍️ create

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Delete: fails NF/GNG. Non-notable. Kolma8 (talk) 15:55, 17 January 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 delete. Arguments based only on the WP:AIRCRASH essay carry little weight, and in the debate of WP:LASTING vs. WP:NOTNEWS, the latter seems to have a stronger claim as the consensus. RL0919 (talk) 05:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

All Nippon Airways Flight 8254

All Nippon Airways Flight 8254 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not notable aviation incident. Runway overruns are very common. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
•  Comment: I do agree with the nominator that runway overruns are quite common; however, I would say the two things that make this not run of the mill are: (1) there was a hull loss which is not particularly common in plane crashes (2) there was a recommendation from the aviation regulators that would possibly qualify for LASTING. Having said that, there is very little news coverage I can find for a hull loss, which puts me a bit at a loss. This in my head should have the articles to pass GNG, but I don't see them yet. I think it's possible I am not finding them despite being out there, very likely because I speak no Japanese. TartarTorte 19:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Here, regulations were changed and it was a hull-loss, which is very uncommon during an excursion. Definitely does pass WP:AIRCRASH but per User:TartarTorte, bit hard to find references, so not sure if it really does pass WP:GNG. But again, WP:AIRCRASH is a definite yes to keep. Username006 (talk) 08:51, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Where did you read that "regulations were changed"? The report contains recommendations; whether they led to regulatory change is a different matter. --Deeday-UK (talk) 10:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• Delete – The event is just a mishap during a training flight that left a crew member slightly bruised; a hull loss per se does not imply notability. The article is based on a single source (the accident report) and on the ASN entry, which mirrors the report. An entry in the yet-to-be-written List of Boeing 767 hull losses article would be plenty, instead of a standalone article. --Deeday-UK (talk) 10:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• Keep This article passes both WP:AIRCRASH with the hull loss and WP:LASTING with the subsequent accident board safety recommendations. Benjamin22b (talk) 08:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Virtually all jetliner accident reports end with some safety recommendations; the point is whether such recommendations had any lasting regulatory or operational impact in the industry, and there is zero evidence of that (unsurprisingly: the recommendations are so vague, boiling down to 'instructors should be more careful'). --Deeday-UK (talk) 10:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

•  Comment: I would like to note that WP:AIRCRASH is an essay that itself says

  By consensus this should not be used to determine whether a stand-alone article should exist or not. If an accident or incident meets the criteria for inclusion in an airport, airline or aircraft article it may also be notable enough for a stand-alone article, if it also meets the criteria provided by the general notability guideline, a notability of events guideline and a guide on the use of news reports.

  Because this is an essay and not policy and also because it should not be applied to stand-alone accident articles, it is recommended that it not be cited at Articles for Deletion discussions for either keeping or deleting.

  TartarTorte 13:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delete - I feel that this falls under the purview of WP:NOTNEWS. No long-lasting coverage of the event. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Keep WP:AIRCRASH & WP:LASTING. DgwTalk 01:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delete Trivial event. ANOT NEWS is the best reason. DGG ( talk ) 01:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - WP:AIRCRASH is an essay, not policy... yet it does offer some guidance and the rationale in the essay is persuasive. I'm not convinced WP:LASTING applies, as the changes to policy listed in the article don't seem sweeping, but more along the lines of "try to do better next time, ok?" The hull argument seems reasonable enough to me, however, so I'll lend my support to the keep side, weak support though it be. Fieari (talk) 07:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delete - WP:AIRCRASH not a valid criteria, no real evidence of WP:LASTING. All things considered, this appears to be a largely inconsequential incident.-KH-1 (talk) 03:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delete per LASTING and NOTNEWS. The consequences were minor recommendations and guidelines. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:13, 18 January 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 delete. Geschichte (talk) 15:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

The Narrative Method

The Narrative Method (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not nearly enough in-depth coverage to show it passes either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:07, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delete — I was also unable to find sourcing to indicate this meets notability requirements. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 22:52, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

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 00:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Delete - Only primary sources found, no secondary sources. Fieari (talk) 01:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Chumpih ^t 17:53, 19 January 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 keep. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 04:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

For the love of Christ

For the love of Christ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unhelpful redirect to Wiktionary. AFreshStart (talk) 00:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. AFreshStart (talk) 00:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Keep. Not a reason for deletion. Redirects to Wiktionary are common and are helpful. The subject is a very common phrase too. Neocorelight (Talk) 01:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Keep - Redirects to wiktionary are useful when an article on the word or phrase is unlikely to be able to be made. It's a notable, common phrase, but not one that really merits discussion in article form, so wiktionary is a great fit. Fieari (talk) 01:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - Redirects are usually nominated at WP:RfD. Daß Wölf 22:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Daß Wölf, WP:Soft redirects are technically and ironically count as mainspace "article". Neocorelight (Talk) 03:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

    See Wikipedia:Soft redirect#Deletion. Daß Wölf 14:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

    Okay, you're right. I didn't see that. Neocorelight (Talk) 22:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• Keep, for the reasons of those who want to keep this redirect. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:14, 19 January 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 delete. ✗plicit 05:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Inspirar Health Tech

Inspirar Health Tech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No indication of notability. Only links are to the company itself, and I was unable to find anything better. The only link I could even find that mentions it is: https://br.sputniknews.com/20200828/exercito-2020-brasil-apresenta-a-russia-solucoes-em-biosseguranca-para-combater-covid-19-16004024.html (Though I can't read it because google translate wigs out because of their cookie message that constantly refreshes the page). Aside from that, google only lists a few company listicals and linkedin. — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 19:52, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I added external links that prove company activity — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainShrimpy (talk • contribs) 21:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: CaptainShrimpy (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

In 45 days, the Inspirar project developed a completely innovative pulmonary ventilator using a completely disruptive technology. The objective was to offer the market high-tech, low-cost pulmonary ventilators so that there was no shortage of equipment to assist the thousands of victims at COVID. In addition, the project donated almost two thousand pieces of equipment to hospitals and philanthropic entities, thus helping to save many lives. This is the relevance presented in this article. A completely new technology combined with humanitarian action to help thousands of people at this very difficult time. That's why this article must not be deleted. To show other companies an example that should be followed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denilson G Sousa (talk • contribs) 11:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC) — Denilson G Sousa (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 00:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

How inspiring the company story is, or how worthwhile the cause is makes no difference. The question is whether it meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 08:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• Delete Overtly promotional in addition to failing WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Delete Promotional article, where the notability cannot be established.--Tysska (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delete: All of the page's sources are in a foreign language. Additionally, the subject has no major relation to the U.S. or any sources in North American/English-based media. There are only very few Brazilian pages that are included in the English subdomain of Wiki and there generally has to be sources in English or a strong notability established outside of their foreign territory. None of which I can see in this AfD nom. Multi7001 (talk) 03:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• What you are saying is frankly bull. Worrysome, actually. The English Wikipedia should and does cover the entire world. Geschichte (talk) 06:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

This particular page lacks any references in the English language or relevance to the North American lifestyle. I don't see how English users can find this useful. Most importantly, the subject may not even meet the notability guidelines in the first place, based on consensus from other users. Generally, pages like these but of middle to high-importance warrant inclusion in the English Wikipedia (e.g., tourist attractions and notable regions of a foreign territory). This page would ideally be more useful for another Wikipedia if it can establish notability, in my opinion. Multi7001 (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Multi7001: Per Wikipedia:RSUE foreign language sources are permitted, while English language sources are preferred. The "North American lifestyle" requirement fringe theory you seem to be pushing may be discriminatory and against policy and I would advise you to listen to the "worrysome" concerns expressed earlier. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Neutral:Weak keep (minimum at present): At least one, and I believe two, of the sources deleted at Special:Diff/1064832212, while in the wrong place and not leveraged properly, see to count towards notability also shown by several of the sources in the article. This needs to be gone to in detail, but I'd assess notabilty is probable. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 01:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC) Working over article sources I am finding concerns about verificability. There are valid concerns about promotion. I remain reasonably minded the Organization may be notable but I have concerns about promootion and verficability of content and misused of cited sources. The existing content and other matters lead to concerns, perhaps justified, perhaps not, about the intergrity of the authors. I am going to move to a neutral !vote; it should probably be a strong delete !vote. I remain minded it is may be possible a create an article for the company - this however is not it. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Djm-leighpark, You know, there are a number of sources that have been added to the article after I listed it that I didn't find when doing the WP:BEFORE search (primarily because they are in Brazilian and didn't show up in the google searches I did). I can't really comment on weather these sources are good enough to count for notability (because I don't know Brazilian sources at all), but my gut tells me that there is probably enough to justify an article notability wise. I appreciate your delving, and I agree that it might be possible. But I also agree that the current article is not it, and I don't think that the current writers are divorced enough from the topic to be able to write about it neutrally (even if they aren't paid, they have both confirmed strong COI ties to the article). — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 20:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• Strong Delete It is straight-up brochure article with information that is not instrisically different from what is in the product manual. No redeeming features. scope_creep^Talk 17:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delete, promotional spam article. -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 20:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• I would suggest the rule of thumb is one is going to !vote delete generally don't edit the article beforehand especially removing sources on the basis of a possible copyvio from elsewhere as was done at Special:Diff/1067117052 — that could have been resolved by a simple paraphase except for the issue the inline cited content didn't come from the source, but as Asartea identified was rather taken from the company website. I have but with alternative prose to cite the source more faithfully. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:32, 21 January 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.