Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 January 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 21 January 23 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that sourcing doesn't meet requirements for notability. Star Mississippi 02:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sakala Kala Vallabhudu[edit]

Sakala Kala Vallabhudu (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 the requirements of WP:NFILM with routine coverage/press releases. Barring a review from 123Telugu, cannot find any reliable reviews in Telugu and English. -- Ab207 (talk) 07:58, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is the other one the page creator possibly had in mind, maybe even this (the site is used enough as a source in en-wiki). But NFILM and WP:GNG guidelines are rebuttable presumptions of notability, to be proved with enough sources for the policy WP:V when questioned at AfD. There is no reason now to presume that any new sources will ever be found for this 2 year old film, for the page to be anything beyond the stub it is. --Hemantha (talk) 12:03, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the reviews found in this discussion by the previous poster along with Telegu sources are enough for a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 17:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    😀 To clarify, NTV Telugu was already there. Telugu Filmnagar definitely can't be used as a source since it is an outlet of a brand management company heavily involved with Telugu film production. hemantha (brief) 07:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Although the article has been worked on, consensus is still that this is not an appropriate topic for Wikipedia. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hank Kunneman[edit]

Hank Kunneman (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 was tagged for speedy deletion a few hours ago, and since then I've been looking at it in the CSD queue trying to decide if A7 actually applies or not (and by the fact no other admin has deleted it, I assume they've all been in the same quandary). To me, the fact that it's taking this long to decide means it's not unambiguously inappropriate for Wikipedia and thus WP:A7 doesn't apply, so here we are. It's right on the borderline; the sources are all very poor quality and a quick WP:BEFORE search turns up a lot of passing mentions and froth in blogs, but nothing obvious I can see that's usable as a Wikipedia source. As a contentious BLP, this isn't a page we should be keeping unless and until reliable sources can be found.  ‑ Iridescent 09:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  ‑ Iridescent 09:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions.  ‑ Iridescent 09:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The major source used in this article is Right Wing Watch. As an established non-profit with a history of reporting in this area I believed them to be a reliable source. Is this not the case? Or is it only the more "blogish"/casual sources in this article that are the problem? (Forgive my ignorance as I'm just getting my feet wet in editing Wikipedia. I am certainly interested in improving the quality of this article, for its sake and the sake of learning for future articles.) Jimsorzo (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I know nothing of the individual and thus take no specific view on him. However, Right Wing Watch sounds like a politically motivated website that is set up to attack people like the subject. If so, this is a POV source, however accurate in its content; meaning that this is in nature an ATTACK article. Having said that, I find some of the the views reported obnoxious, but that is merely my POV. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The most recent RSN discussion on Right Wing Watch appears to consider the source reliable with attribution. ––FormalDude talk 22:03, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I tagged this article for speedy deletion because the subject seemed notorious but not notable. I think a discussion here at an AFD is more appropriate than speedy deletion and want to thank Iridescent for starting this discussion. As it stands today, it looks like this will be relisted at least once more and might be headed towards a "soft delete". Liz Read! Talk! 01:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yuck Christianity Today [1], Patheos [2] (Which is as far as I can tell a curated blogspace), Eternity News [3] which appears reasonable, all provide coverage of this guy's pro-Trump prophecy and its aftermath. Is he notable? Probably. He's certainly getting a lot of namedrops for his brand of Christianity-as-politics. Do we really need to have an article on him? Um... I'm unconvinced. Jclemens (talk) 06:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only GNG-compliant sources are the multiple instances of coverage by Right Wing Watch but that is an outlet dedicated specifically to finding and pointing out the worst excesses of a detrimental slice of political life. The lack of other coverage suggests that this person, however loud his ravings, has not been noticed by anyone other than those dedicated either to his viewpoint or to tracking that viewpoint. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per WP:HEY. I've added several reliable sources that meet WP:GNG. ––FormalDude talk 22:06, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: although the article seems to have a bunch of references, most of those references are only from Right Wing Watch or Newsweek. Most of his prophecies have only been covered by Right Wing Watch; the only prophecy widely covered is his Trump election one, and fifteen minutes of fame isn't enough to warrant an article. TL | The Legend talk 03:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • leaning towards delete per User:TL The Legend's accurate analysis. Not exactly a BLP1E but almost there. The sources for biographical information (Biography, Ministry and Writing sections) are atrocious. Cavarrone 17:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article appears to have been created with a strong POV, not in an encyclopedic tone. The subject does not have enough coverage to have a properly-sourced non-POV article, since all of the sources are based on reportings from Right Wing Watch. I think Eggishorn said it well. WikiGuruWanaB (talk) 05:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to KLOS. Liz Read! Talk! 22:47, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Horns Up (radio)[edit]

Horns Up (radio) (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 one-station radio show fails the WP:GNG. Contested prod by article creator in 2016. It appears to no longer be on the air. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:32, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:52, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Housing in the United States by state[edit]

Housing in the United States by state (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)

Could in theory be a good article, but in its current form it is a list of links to categories for 38 states, plus two sentences introduction and three sentences about Wisconsin. Rusalkii (talk) 20:03, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep though it surely needs improvement. Helps the set of pages w/ the shared nav template hold together. Category pages are not a good substitute. – SJ + 22:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:06, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete That was well-intended, but completely useless, at least in present state. The wikilings to categories should not be used. Basically, someone wanted to do something with this page, but then dropped it in a ridiculous state more than a year ago. My very best wishes (talk) 23:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:52, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete largely incomplete article. Has potential, but needs a lot of work. Could go back into draft for more work, beofre going into mainspace again. if an article needs a bit of work to make it better, I sometimes jump in, but this would be *massive* to get it to the point to get it in shape. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, article does not give us much information, needs work.Alex-h (talk) 14:50, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 22:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Grove[edit]

Chris Grove (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)

Businessman BLP doesn't seem to meet WP:ANYBIO- coverage is either not independent or merely WP:PASSING mentions about the person. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:21, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. While there is no consensus whether this should be kept or merged, there isn't any consensus to delete the article/text. The rest can be handled editorially. Star Mississippi 02:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Dahl (entrepreneur)[edit]

Gary Dahl (entrepreneur) (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)

Proposing delete or merge with Pet Rock. He is the founder of Pet Rock, a company that sold rocks and had a short success for 6 months. He is only known for that. He hardly made $4 million and not in anyway a household name. Caphadouk (talk) 10:21, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Originally soft deleleted, but undeleted and relisting by request.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Pet Rock already has some biographical information on Dahl and so I don't think this article is necessary. Although I did find it interesting that he won the Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest but that fact is also listed on the contest page. I'm old enough to remember that Pet Rocks were a big deal covered in the media in the mid-1970s but all of the relevant information is covered in the article about them. Liz Read! Talk! 00:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep (Changed my vote - evidence of enough articles now, and he is noted for a few things, apart from pet rocks it would seem) Not enough RS, falls short of WP:GNG, unless more can be found. Merge with Pet rock (which indeed was a worldwide phenomenon at the time) Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:36, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Deathlibrarian, wondering if you have seen the sources presented below? Eddie891 Talk Work 02:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahh..ok, I will have a look and re-evaluate - thanks for the heads up. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to pet rock. Deletion is clearly inappropriate since there's a viable merge/redirect target. However, Dahl himself independently meets GNG: obituaries in The Telegraph [4], The New York Times [5], ABC [6], LA Times [7], NPR [8], Reuters [9] and more; Remembrances in Entrepreneur [10], Inc. [11] (both meh sources); Profiles in The Charlotte Observer (1976) [12], The Salt Lake Tribune (1977) [13], The News and Observer (2000) [14], Newsweek (1980, article titled Pet Rocks: 'Tough Act to Follow', 428 words about his other efforts), The Philadelphia Inquirer (1980) [15], The Tampa Bay Times (1982) [16]. This is a wealth of enduring, significant coverage.
    There's quite a bit more that mentions Dahl and focuses on the rocks (rather than these profiles, which are the other way around). There's nothing that says facts must only be findable in one place on Wikipedia. Dahl's work with the pet rock made him famous, and when coupled with the couple other things he did including win the Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest ([17]), Carrie Nation's bar ([18]), "Sand Breeding Kits" ([19], [20], [21]) and "Red China Dirt," ([22], [23]) I think there's just about enough for a stand-alone article. If not the content should be merged and redirected rather than simply deleted. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:17, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He is mentioned in over 100 scholarly articles and the basic gist on brief review is that it isn't that he created the Pet Rock so much as that in this act, he innovated a brand strategy that than became influential and copied. Novellasyes (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Walid Al Jassim[edit]

Walid Al Jassim (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)

References based off of single event, BLP1E. scope_creepTalk 23:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Draftify. Consensus is that there is enough content that this is likely worth incubating in draft space. I will move it momentarily. Star Mississippi 02:05, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Wimsatt[edit]

Gavin Wimsatt (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:NCOLLATH. Only played for mere minutes. scope_creepTalk 21:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These are all effectively the same news, making it routine in nature. scope_creepTalk 15:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See also "Humble Hero" (part 1/part 2). BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Draftify The most recent references are part of a local high school season preview. Its possible that this is simply a case of WP:TOOSOON. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The level of coverage is just not enough to show notability. Not every mention of a high school athlete should be considered adding toward passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or draftify. This one is a close call IMO. WP:TOOSOON definitely comes to mind since he has only appeared as a backup in four games, completing a total of nine passes. See here. But the coverage is pretty deep (this, this, and the "Humble Hero" piece as examples). In the end, it's hard to conclude that this doesn't constitute GNG-level SIGCOV. Cbl62 (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure how much "Rutgers Wire" contributes to GNG as it's a team-specific blog and the "Humble Hero" is part of the area high school football preview for Owensboro, Kentucky in the local newspaper . Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you, and I'm a "weak keep". My assessment was as follows: The first one is published by USA Today, grouped under its Rutgers coverage, but USA Today is a reliable, independent source. The second is in-depth coverage from NJ.com which according to our Wikipedia article is a media source providing content to several major newspapers. The third piece is local, yes, but it has good depth, and there's no bar on relying on local coverage (though I tend to discount it a bit based on just how "local" it is and how much "depth" there is). Cbl62 (talk) 19:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've added draftify as another option. As football season approaches, and with the expectation that Wimsatt will be Rutgers' starting QB and savior, the coverage will build considerably over the next six to nine months. Cbl62 (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete some coverage exists, but not enough to pass WP:GNG at this point. He will likely play more in the coming years but the coverage that exists in January 2022 does not warrant an article. Frank Anchor 16:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Frank Anchor: @GPL93: This, this, and the "Humble Hero" piece are pretty deep coverage. Would you consider at least changing your vote to "draftify" to see if the new college season generates additional coverage? Cbl62 (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Draftify with same rationale as above. I did not even consider that as an option, but it makes more sense based on my "not notable yet" rationale Frank Anchor 16:33, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be opposed to a draft being created because it's possible that more coverage could accrue, but a hs preview from the local newspaper and the Rutger Wire aren't that notability lending. All of the "Team Wire" are online-only sites hosted under USA Today's overall web platform and essentially function as team specific sports blogs, so I would definitely not equate the Rutgers Wire article to carrying anywhere near as much weight as an article as being in USA Today. Even the new sources are the same routine area recruiting news (it's not like it's Arch Manning getting coverage from the national press) and beat coverage. Again, I do think its possible that this season could lead to more extensive coverage so I'm fine with this article existing in the draft space. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really exclude local coverage? I can't find a guideline that does. And the coverage I've shown seems to be definition of WP:SIGCOV: "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We exclude local coverage for high school athletes (per WP:NHSPHSATH), but not college. I think it's pretty clear Wimsatt will become notable if, as expect, he starts next fall and is half as good as predicted. Draftifying is not a bad option here. Cbl62 (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but Wimsatt is a college athlete and several of the in-depth pieces are from his college career (and the guideline you pointed me says "excludes the majority of local coverage," not all). BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, he is a college athlete, though barely with nine pass completions in four games as a backup. I'm ok with either keeping based on the current coverage or with draftifying until the fall. The only option I disagree with is outright deleting. Cbl62 (talk) 18:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Draftify. Why anyone as promising has him would want to join Rutgers football is beyond me, we've been a disaster for years... Nevertheless, I'd say the sources from Cbl62 and BF do go beyond routine transactional coverage and include what looks like non-local SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rutgers = The birthplace of college football. It's been 150 years but still ... Cbl62 (talk) 20:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rutgers also has a Paul Robeson Cultural Center and a Paul Robeson Boulevard and a Paul Robeson Plaza and Paul Robeson's face is mandated to be visible within 50 feet of anywhere on campus. Sometimes when the Endowment committee senses donors are getting distracted by things like the third string burglary ring or Flood bribing professors it will send out a frantic alumni mailer with the headline "The Birthplace of College Football" and then the text is just one 2600x3200 picture of Paul Robeson, to remind us what really matters. I live like a mile from the football stadium, I want them to continue sucking so traffic isn't so bad on game days. JoelleJay (talk) 03:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify The sources are there but I think it makes sense to move to draft until there is more sustained relevance. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 23:47, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Discussion towards a merger can still take place elsewhere, Eddie891 Talk Work 22:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ignyte Awards[edit]

Ignyte Awards (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 award. Established in 2020. scope_creepTalk 21:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pusse-Ela[edit]

Pusse-Ela (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:V? An alternative spelling is Pusseela. The sourcing on the substub itself is non-existent - Pusseela is however mentioned at http://www.statistics.gov.lk/Resource/districtCode/Central%20Province.pdf, which my browser considers a security liability and won't let me open. The coordinates point to a densely forested area, so Pusseela is maybe a forest? A wilderness park? Should be discussed. Geschichte (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I was able to open the document, and all it contains is a list of codes for "administrative divisions", not saying what those might be. I went through the census material, and I found no numbers reported below the district level. A quick check in GEONAMES shows that it is the source of this entry. I've not been impressed with its reliability in other countries, and it looks quite dubious here. Note that there is a Pussella which is a ways away but seems more reliably there. Mangoe (talk) 05:45, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 22:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lanzas[edit]

Lanzas (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 the deletion of Irma Lanzas, this SIA has only one entry. Normally I would just redirect to that entry, Joaquín María del Castillo y Lanzas, but Lanzas was del Castillo's maternal surname and thus not a name he would be normally called by. Given that not all of our readers know how Spanish surnames work, Lanzas may still be a plausible search term for him, but it might also be a plausible search term for someone looking for a list of people with the surname Lanza. So I suggest that we redirect to Lanza and include Joaquín María del Castillo y Lanzas in "See also". But I could also see a case for just deleting and let the search results handle it. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 21:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gobookmart[edit]

Gobookmart (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 isn’t irredeemably promotional is why I didn’t tag with a G11. In actuality this is a very bother line promotional non notable article on a website that is in accordance with WP:NOT#INTERNET. The article describes their goals and treats this like a WP:LINKEDIN, the references are very unreliable also. Celestina007 (talk) 20:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Index of Sri Lanka–related articles[edit]

Index of Sri Lanka–related articles (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)
Index of Sri Lanka–related articles (0–9) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Sri Lanka–related articles (A) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Sri Lanka–related articles (B) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Sri Lanka–related articles (C) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Sri Lanka–related articles (D) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Sri Lanka–related articles (E) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Sri Lanka–related articles (F) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Sri Lanka–related articles (G) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Sri Lanka–related articles (H) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Sri Lanka–related articles (I) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Sri Lanka–related articles (J) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Sri Lanka–related articles (K) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Sri Lanka–related articles (L) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Sri Lanka–related articles (M) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Sri Lanka–related articles (N) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Sri Lanka–related articles (O) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Sri Lanka–related articles (P) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Sri Lanka–related articles (Q–R) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Sri Lanka–related articles (S) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Sri Lanka–related articles (T) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Sri Lanka–related articles (U–V) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Sri Lanka–related articles (W–X) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Index of Sri Lanka–related articles (Y–Z) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These are alphabetical lists of articles related to Sri Lanka. As discussed in the recent nominations for the Brazil and India indexes, these sorts of lists have very low utility for readers and bring massive maintenance burdens that no-one has been willing to shoulder.

The page Index of Sri Lanka–related articles comes with the usual issues for the genre: it's got just over a thousand links, which represent a tiny fraction of the 18,000 actual Sri Lanka–related articles tracked by Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka. This can mislead readers into believeing that articles don't exist on a large number of topics related to the country.

The other set of pages – Index of Sri Lanka–related articles (0–9) through Index of Sri Lanka–related articles (Y–Z) – suffers, unusually, from the opposite problem. With a total of over 28,000 links, these lists have a large number of entries without any identifiable connection to Sri Lanka: from South Indian films (like Akam (film) or Akale) to Bangladeshi neighbourhoods (like Akania and Akania Nasirpur) to Burmese temples (Zinkyaik Pagoda) or Tibetan power stations (like Zhikong Hydro Power Station). – Uanfala (talk) 20:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 20:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 20:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. These are huge blocks of links that are of no use to any human user. Geschichte (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. These lists are not a useful method of searching for topics. Many of the articles on the individual letter lists are not even related to Sri Lanka. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Metropolitan90 and the fact that none of these lists are maintainable in the slightest. I looked one of them randomly and the only edits to it have been random people removing links for articles that had been deleted. There's probably no way to keep them up to date aside from that. I doubt anyone could add new articles about Sri Lanka to them at a rate that would make the lists up to date and useful though. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - These articles/lists/indexes are not against WP:DP. Therefore, DR is simply wrong or POV. The DR nominator seems he/she has own Deletion Policy than accepted wp:DP. Do we follow accepted policy or user's interpretations. If there any misleading inclusions, we can edit as per common practice. Are we going to delete all from Lists of country-related topics. --AntanO 09:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as impractical to maintain and largely useless to readers. firefly ( t · c ) 17:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question How could you say useless to readers? Does wp:DP says to delete? If so, where it is written? --AntanO 17:47, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The relevant bit of the deletion policy is WP:DELAFD, which basically says that an article can be deleted if editors reach consensus to that effect in a discussion like this one. There aren't any more specific guidelines: indexes don't have any encyclopedic significance per se (so notability, and WP:LISTN, aren't relevant), their function is to provide navigation for readers, and deciding whether to keep or delete a particular one will depend on whether they're deemed useful as navigational aids. In recent AfDs (like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of India-related articles) there has been rough consensus that country-level indexes are generally not useful: if a reader is looking for a topic in such a vast area, they're unlikely to be served well by an alphabetic list of thousands of entries: using it would be like looking for a needle in a haystack. A reader will be much better off to use the search function, or browse the category tree, or look through the links in a related article. – Uanfala (talk) 19:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all The online encyclopedia has a search bar, categories, and a network of links from other articles so I can't conceive what the usefulness of listing thousands of disparate topics together alphabetically is. This is not a paper encyclopedia in which an index tells you what pages content is on: if you know what you're looking for, you can type it in, and if don't, two dozen massive lists aren't going to do much good. Yes, deleting the rest of Lists of country-related topics too would be a good idea. If the creator above or others somehow have utility for this, perhaps it can be moved into the Sri Lanka Wikiproject similar to Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/List of mathematics articles (D), which has a bot that adds new articles to keep Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Current activity comprehensive. Reywas92Talk 20:38, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all for the same reasons as the following Index articles: Brazil, India, Pakistan, China and Romania. I believe a precedent has been set that country-based index articles shouldn't exist. Ajf773 (talk) 10:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Sadly, someone has gone to a lot of work to create this, but this is a lot of maintenance work. Browsing lists is valid way of looking for material, but categories will do the same function. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Deloitte. And mention briefly there. Sandstein 16:48, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Krekel van der Woerd Wouterse[edit]

Krekel van der Woerd Wouterse (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)

Unreferenced since 2006, fails WP:PROMO, WP:CORP, no corresponding NL Wiki article to look at for potential references. My WP:BEFORE found lots of studies by them, but no significant coverage of them. FOARP (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi gidonb, thanks for responding. Please correct me if I am wrong, but this appears to be an interview with G. Prins, the director of KvdWW, and interviews are not independent coverage. We need non-interview articles profiling the company. They should also be a pass for the audience requirements of WP:CORP. FOARP (talk) 11:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. There are more interviews and tons of coverage of the company's research. Judging by the companies and economic branches affected, this was an extremely impactful organization. But rules are rules. In this case use the following sources for a mention in the Deloitte article, where the acquisition is missing.
Bedrijfsadviseurs gaan samen. De Tijd, 23-06-1971, p. 10. Via Delpher, 09-01-2022.
KWW dochter. Het Vrije Volk, 23-10-1969, p. 17. Via Delpher, 09-01-2022.
I.e. just merge into Deloitte. For this we will also need a reference for the acquisition.Here. gidonb (talk) 19:02, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:51, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - The coverage in the above links is brief, WP:MILL/routine-type coverage of the purchase of KWW by Deloitte that does not rise to the level of significant coverage under WP:CORP. KWW was a small firm in relation to Deloitte and would be out of proportion in the Deloitte article. FOARP (talk) 14:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sources and the importance of this company are sufficient for a mention and redirect, which bundles as a highly selective merge. gidonb (talk) 14:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 19:02, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

National Business Research Institute[edit]

National Business Research Institute (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 in conflict with WP:PROMO and WP:COI. Fails WP:GNG per lack of reliable secondary sources. Main editors appear to be primary stakeholders in the company itself. Headphase (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Colin McCool. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Colin McCool with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948[edit]

Colin McCool with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (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 is another article with the same issues that Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 had (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (2nd nomination). McCool did not play a single test with the team in England, and didn't do much as part of the team in general. There simply isn't enough to justify this fork off of his main article at Colin McCool. The "role" section is the only thing here that's actually encyclopedic; it should be merged into Colin McCool if there's anything there of significance not already there. This fork even admits such:

  • "A frontline leg spinner and middle-order batsman, McCool was not prominent in the team's success."
  • "he was one of two squad members who did not play a Test on tour. Along with Doug Ring, the trio called themselves "ground staff" because of the paucity of their on-field duties in the major matches and they often sang ironic songs about their status."

The prose here is largely sourced from statistics and fails to demonstrate the need for this fork. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:02, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bipindada Shankarrao Kolhe[edit]

Bipindada Shankarrao Kolhe (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:NPOL as a non-winning candidate and seems to thoroughly fail WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Joye[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Christopher Joye (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)

Same deletion rationale as the previous AfD, because the same content issues still apply, given the content has not changed since its undeletion. Non-notable biography, 80% of the references on the page cite works that are directly written by the subject, notability not established from third-party reliable sources, article prose is excessively promotional. The overwhelming majority of Google hits are either LinkedIn pages, promotional pages, company staff lists, blogs, columnist profiles, articles that the subject has written themselves, or a one-sentence very passing mention of the subject. This article likely exists for the purpose of search engine optimization, and does not serve any encyclopedic purpose that is within project scope. --benlisquareT•C•E 15:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or at best WP:TNT If the unreferenced content is removed, and the primary and non independent referenced content is removed, and the self congratulatory content is removed, there is very very little left. There is sufficent material to be found to write a reasonable stub article but that is about it. There are some "good" looking references such as this?and some balance like this? to be found about the subject, but that is about it, and I tried hard I think. If kept it needs to be redone from scratch. Aoziwe (talk) 11:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per my reasoning in the last AfD, such glowing article with testimonials... I thought it was an WP:AUTOBIO. There is a lack of indepth third party coverage of him as the subject. Fails WP:BIO LibStar (talk) 00:17, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bombaat[edit]

Bombaat (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 film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as only one review (rediff) was found DonaldD23 talk to me 16:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 16:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 16:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is a Sify review here in addition to the Rediff review. DareshMohan (talk) 20:52, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not only Rediff, but even if it was, there's plenty of coverage to establish notability. Shahid • Talk2me 08:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the Sify review is nothing more then a glorified plot summary. There's zero "review" involved in it. So the only other "review" that seems to exist is the one from Rediff and it should go without saying that a single review isn't enough for the standard of notability put forward in WP:NFILM. Otherwise, if there's "plenty of coverage to establish notability" then it should be provided so this isn't deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a Deccan Herald review here. DareshMohan (talk) 04:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The Sify URL is http://www.sify.com/movies/kannada/review.php?id=14737777&ctid=5&cid=2427 (notice why I boldened review) and it does include review-worthy comments like "Ganesh has fallen to the superstar syndrome by doing a run of the mill film Bombaat" and "The story itself is wafer thin. Just to protect the police commissioner’s daughter, he takes courage in countering the three goons. Added to it is the mother sentiment plus Mano Murthy’s rehashed tunes from his earlier films, makes it messy". The "plot summary" is restricted to three paragraphs. The addition of the Deccan Herald review only saves the article from people with preconceived notions. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes NFILM with 2+ critical reviews (DH, Rediff and Sify). -- Ab207 (talk) 16:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:GNG with dedicated independent reviews in multiple reliable sources so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 08:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, What a Night (1992 film)[edit]

Oh, What a Night (1992 film) (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:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES; found no RS reviews in a WP:BEFORE and no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep, withdrawn. Geschichte (talk) 10:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Machine (film)[edit]

Dream Machine (film) (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:NFO, WP:NFSOURCES and WP:SIGCOV; I found no RS reviews in a WP:BEFORE and no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 14:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Demolition University[edit]

Demolition University (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:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES; I found no RS reviews in a WP:BEFORE and no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 14:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:02, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Lee (solicitor)[edit]

Christine Lee (solicitor) (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)

per WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E, this person is not notable outside of a single event, and does not have lasting/persistent notability. WP:BLPCRIME also applies. Wikipedia is not a newspaper or an indiscriminate collection of information. Our focus on her as a person fails certain privacy standards as well, as she is not a politician or celebrity. She is extremely likely to remain a low-profile individual. Therefore, it is almost impossible to maintain a NPOV on her life, given that her coverage will be UNDUE and focused on smaller news reports. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete but don't redirect to Barry Gardiner as he wasn't the only parliamentarian involved. I am the creator of this article and it appears I made a mistake doing so per WP:BLP1E. LondonIP (talk) 01:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 18:02, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Gray (actor)[edit]

Joe Gray (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)

Not notable actor. All his work is uncredited and the only source for this is IMDB. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • My first instinct was to !vote delete. A google search returns almost nothing other than material based on this article. But a Google Books search returns an awful lot of hits. It looks like he was there for a lot of important films, played a variety of small roles, did some fight choreography, stood in for the biggest names of the era, and was friends with some A-listers. Kind of makes me think of Cliff from Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. There's the encyclopedia of stuntmen entry for significant coverage, but I'd want to find at least one more like that before falling on the keep side. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This person was literally never credited for any acting role ever. Having an uncredited role in a notable film is plain not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abhay Jotva[edit]

Abhay Jotva (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 a notable politician. Subject's main claim to prominence is as a district opposition leader, that in itself doesn't warrant an article. Fails WP:GNG as well as WP:NPOL. Ts12rActalk to me 12:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion if adequate reliable sources exist in the future. Liz Read! Talk! 22:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Matas Vaitkus[edit]

Matas Vaitkus (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 enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:NBASKETBALL. Onel5969 TT me 15:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. A Google search, including in Lithuanian sources, did not turn up any articles that go towards GNG. Alvaldi (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In my personal opinion this basketball player meets WP:GNG, WP:NBASKETBALL requirements to be included in notable sportsperson.

There is a source in article which has a independent basketball sportsnews article exclusively about this player who plays in 1st Division and 2nd Division simultaneously.[1]

Also player played for Lithuania U19 National Team in FIBA Under-19 Basketball World Cup and competed against USA, France, Australia, Senegal etc. and such players as Tyrese Haliburton, Joel Ayayi etc. source of FIBA Player profile also provided in article. [2] And positioned 4th in the world.

In my opinion thats more than sufficient evidence and source for player to be notable sportsman.

User:Paulmafija (talk) 18:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Paulmafija: Per the general notability guideline, a topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Articles on team or league websites are considered primary sources and as such are not considered independent of the subject. Other than this game review, there are no articles that cover Vaitkus in any detail. Alvaldi (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Alvaldi: on the article I also included another source earlier today [3] which is independent of the subject. I can include many numerous sources, e.g www.proballers.com article which shows all latest achievments and records. I was just unaware that team and leagues wsource counts as primary, so sorry for that. (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]
@Paulmafija: The article you are refering to only briefly mentions him twice and would not be considered a significant coverage. The Proballers source is a player profile/database listing that does not go towards passing GNG per WP:NOTDATABASE. Alvaldi (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Alvaldi: I don't want to insult your judgement, but 800 word article [4] exclusively talks avout this player. While second article [5] even though is brief but talks about his achievment on first game at highest level. I seen articles on sportsplayer with just League's profile. (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]
@Paulmafija: No offence taken. The source you mention does indeed talk about Vaitkus a bit and I'm fine with counting it towards GNG. However, for the article to be kept it requires multiple indepth sources from different publications. A good rule of thumb is to have at least three good indepth sources. I've also seen articles where the only source is a league's profile or some database listing and those usually get deleted if taken to AfD, unless they pass one of the sports-specific notability guideline (and even then they ain't 100% guaranteed to be kept). Alvaldi (talk) 08:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ "Netikėtai į „Neptūną" patekęs gynėjas naudojasi visomis progomis – net į mačą atvykus trečiajame kėlinyje". basketnews.lt (in Lithuanian). 8 November 2021.
  2. ^ "Matas Vaitkus (LTU)'s profile – FIBA U19 World Cup 2019". FIBA. Retrieved 6 January 2022.
  3. ^ "Iššovusiam „Neptūno" jaunuoliui – trenerio pagyros: „Įrodinėja savo vertę"". basketnews.lt (in Lithuanian). 26 September 2021.
  4. ^ "Netikėtai į „Neptūną" patekęs gynėjas naudojasi visomis progomis – net į mačą atvykus trečiajame kėlinyje". basketnews.lt (in Lithuanian). 8 November 2021.
  5. ^ "Iššovusiam „Neptūno" jaunuoliui – trenerio pagyros: „Įrodinėja savo vertę"". basketnews.lt (in Lithuanian). 26 September 2021.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 15:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Need more independent reliable sources. This article has improvement opportunities VincentGod11 (talk) 15:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 12:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Lee Jung-jae[edit]

List of awards and nominations received by Lee Jung-jae (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)

per WP:TOOSOON, I don't know if it meets the criteria, this article can be read at the main page easily before, I do not see if it needs to be split for another article. Ctrlwiki • 00:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 03:11, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but cleanup. The first half of the table is unsourced (prior to 2010), and there's a few non-notable awards (no wiki article) that should be removed. However, the article seems to meet the requirements of splitting the main article due to size. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Combined total of both pages is more than the recommended size for a page, so needs to be split. Main article is already at its size limit, so can't be merged. He's got lots of awards! Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:40, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The argument that the coverage is fleeting and about the acquisition rather than about the company itself has not been successfully rebutted. As usual, anyone wishing to recover the content to write a draft can use WP:REFUND. Stifle (talk) 15:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daraz[edit]

Daraz (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: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++ 18:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Daily Star
  2. Daily Star
  3. Financial Express
  4. The Himalayan Times
  5. Daily FT
  6. Daily Star
  7. Daily FT
  8. Profit Pakistan Today
  9. Nepali Times
  10. Financial Express
  11. Dhaka Tribune
  12. US News
  13. Daily Star
  14. Dhaka Tribune

Mommmyy (talk) 13:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Response Please read WP:NCORP. Not a single one of those references meet the NCORP criteria for establishing notability. Please especially pay attention to the WP:ORGIND section and "Independent Content". HighKing++ 20:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @HighKing: I have found a multitude of sources online and am ready to expand the article, but an interesting thing I've noticed is that this article seems to be about Daraz Group, the company, whereas a lot of sources are about their e-commerce platform. How should one go about expanding the article (changing the focus entirely, renaming this one and making a separate article about the platform, etc)? RealKnockout (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi RealKnockOut, you've identified the real issue here - while the topic company doesn't appear to meet the notability criteria, there's a good chance that the platform has enough in-depth sources to meet the criteria for notability. I suggest you change and rename the current article (or perhaps request that it is moved to Drafts to allow you time to work on it). I would support this action and I'm sure an admin would too. HighKing++ 20:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's not often on this AfD forum and somewhat refreshing to see that the nominator and the contributing editor seem to have resolved things themselves here. It appears there is no need any further for me to vote 'Keep' or 'Delete' the article here? Ngrewal1 (talk) 16:13, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would like some additional input, the comments are not strong in either direction
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:24, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify to allow RealKnockout to work on shifting the focus of the article to the platform instead of the company. I found some sources that don't entirely rely on Daraz or their personnel for info: [36], [37], [38]. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 09:07, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think [39], [40], [41], [42], and [43] are independent as they are news. Troyol (talk) 11:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 10:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response You need to read WP:ORGIND and particularly the part about "Independent Content". It's more than just a corporate separation between the topic company and the publisher. And "news" reports about companies tend to rely entirely on information provided by the company or their execs, or regurgitate a press release or announcement - which describes the links you've posted - and that type of "news" report fails WP:ORGIND and therefore WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 14:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Draftify. Tone 19:02, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saša Ciani[edit]

Saša Ciani (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)

Meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NBASKETBALL. Bounced from mainspace to draft, where it was declined at AfC, then moved back to mainspace. Onel5969 TT me 11:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find enough sources for him to pass WP:GNG. Did find a few from August 2021, like these two [44][45], but that is not sustained coverage. He does seem to have some promise and might gain coverage in the future but at this point it is a bit WP:TOOSOON. Alvaldi (talk) 11:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also wouldn't mind if the article would be Draftified. Alvaldi (talk) 08:28, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:04, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Newcastle United F.C.#Supprters and rivalries. I leave it to the editors to decide how much should be merged, but just noting to Jay_eyem that the merge would require a redirect for attribution. While you can have a redirect without merger, you can't have a merger without a redirect. Star Mississippi 02:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Newcastle United Independent Supporters Association[edit]

Newcastle United Independent Supporters Association (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 notability. Article fails WP:GNG. We can’t have articles on all supporters groups in the world, and this one does not seem more notable than others. Paul Vaurie (talk) 08:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per Joseph2302. I don't see independent notability for the group, and I don't see the need for a redirect given how few pageviews this has. Think the information can be merged into the supporter's section and be done with it. Jay eyem (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. With the debate open for almost a month, neither side prevails either on numbers or on quality of argument. Stifle (talk) 15:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Holger Mühlbauer[edit]

Holger Mühlbauer (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 notability. Sources aren't independent (press releases, publisher or employer, ...), and looking for other sources only gives e.g. pieces where he is quoted[46] (a quote taken directly from the press release it seems, compare with this) or mentioned in passing[47]. Some of the sources one can find are for a namesake, a painter and graphic artist. In any case, neither regular Google[48] nor Google News[49] provide any independent sources about the subject, so he fails WP:GNG. Fram (talk) 11:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Misrepresentation of existing sources. ssoar.info is independent. Beuth is independent. Horizont Magazine is a regular magazine. There are also published books. KittenKlub (talk) 11:31, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Beuth is his publisher; that is not independent info. Ssoar published a text by him, and includes a short biography (as publishers often do). Again, not independent. Publishers giving a biography of someone they published... Horizont is the only decent source (for notability) here. Fram (talk) 11:44, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Keep. Did we do a WP:BEFORE on specific industry journals? I think the article does him some disservice by calling him a technical writer which he might be, but, he seems to be a domain expert as it pertains to technology standards based on the work for International Standards Organisation and also as the managing director of TeleTrusT. Gerda Arendt had earlier shared a few links, some of which do seem relevant. [50] [51] and [52]. Might be worth searching more along these lines. Not a straightforward delete for sure. Might be worth keeping. Ktin (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I see some good presence (with decent numbers of cites) on Google Scholar  – Link here Ktin (talk) 22:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the link, but I see nothing which comes close to the WP:NPROF criteria. Perhaps I missed some highly cited publication or so? Fram (talk) 08:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm confused. Yesterday, Gerda Arendt came to your user talk page[53] and posted there the links you repeat above, and thanks you for "your help with the ISO person". I can't find where you previously edited the article or the AfD, so I have no idea what "help" that would be? It all looks a lot like Gerda Arendt going around to one of her friends to rally support for this article, which would be canvassing / votestacking, but perhaps there is a better explanation and I missed something here? Fram (talk) 08:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I went to Ktin for three reasons: thanking me for an edit on my user talk per ping, adding a ref and removing the pro-deletion template. (We also worked on other articles together.) Quite the opposite of what you think, I archived all Mühlbauer-related talk from my well-watched talk. It was your new template, Fram, which brought the topic back to my talk. If people arrive here, they will have seen it on my talk where I didn't comment but left it. I tried to not even take part in this discussion but your comment hurt me enough to break my intention. I know too little about what it takes to be notable for en-WP but can tell you that he is notable for my standards just by the position he holds, and I will write about Helmut Reimer (his predecessor, who was also one of the teachers of Angela Merkel so will have better chances) regardless of how this ends. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Those edits were by Kittenklub, not Ktin[54]. I presume they're not the same person. It was your out-of-the-blue comment at Ktin's user talk page that brought them here. Fram (talk) 09:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry. I notice only now that I confused the two user names, nervous as I was. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:28, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey folks, I am coming up to speed on this thread. Fram can you please explain the relevance of your question to this AfD other than to potentially side track this conversation?
    Specifically, if you are accusing an editor of WP:CANVAS, look no further than the very first line of the passage In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. So, I do not see any issues with the invoke. It was very much on-platform. Please focus on the discussion. Good luck. Ktin (talk) 06:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    People who are canvassed rarely see any issue with them being canvassed. That Gerda Arendt can't even acknowledge the errors in her attempted rebuttal of my statement is clear enough. Fram (talk) 08:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    While I am not interested in your second sentence, your first sentence is an ad-hominem attack on me and my abilities. I would encourage you to refrain from doing so. Ktin (talk) 01:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep As said before, I believe this person is notable, perhaps not per WP formality, but by being a voice in international standardization, and asked to comment by papers such as Wirtschaftswoche (article) and Computerwoche, in his national leading function. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not appear to meet academic notability, and there isn't independent sourcing available. Even the !keep above alludes to the issue of not actually meeting notability, but I'm also unable to identify any other sourcing that would work for GNG. Star Mississippi 16:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand because he is no academic. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    he's not well cited enough for that to work, regardless of whether he's an academic. Without his works well cited enough or coverage, I do not see how he is notable per our standards. Star Mississippi 19:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    His "work" is being head of the German competence centre for IT security, which is in an international network, working internationally, if you ask me, also being instrumental in ISO international standards. What I see is that it's easier for a beauty queen to be acceptable than a person who shapes international standards. Always learning. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:18, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You're an established editor just as I am, we're both entitled to our opinions on notability and since they're opinions, neither one of us is "right". Agree to disagree, but I'm not sure what beauty queens have to do with this as that's not an area I edit. Star Mississippi 19:22, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 17:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep GNG and ANYBIO compliance is demonstrated by references already in the article, including references #4, 5, and 8. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:18, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to United States sanctions. Consensus merge, I'll redirect so that the content can be easily accessed. Tone 18:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perceptions of the United States sanctions[edit]

Perceptions of the United States sanctions (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)

Delete. This article is a WP:SYNTH WP:COATRACK that overlaps with United States sanctions, Effectiveness of economic sanctions, Sanctions against Iraq and perhaps several other topics but bounces around all over the place without a single source that discusses (or even defines) the ostensible topic. While AfD is not clean-up, it is notable that the creator relies almost exclusively (in descending order of credibility) on linguist and social critic Noam Chomsky, the libertarian Cato Institute think tank, and Max Blumenthal (editor of the WP:FRINGE deprecated source The Grayzone) as the main sources for the article (with lengthy blockquotes and close paraphrasing to boot); it is unclear how a neutral search procedure would have generated those three sources as essential to understanding economic sanctions. To be fair, the lede is an acceptable overview of United States sanctions and perhaps should be merged if it contains any non-duplicative content, but after that Perceptions of the United States sanctions devolves into a barely-coherent mess: The Double standards section confusingly lists Iraq and Libya without explaining or defining the "double standards" in question (while tediously reproducing debunked disinformation dubbed "a spectacular lie" by The Washington Post regarding the humanitarian effects of Sanctions against Iraq); the Protecting Israel section (with Chomsky as the sole source) appears to be condemning the lack of U.S. sanctions against Israel ("still there was no call for any sanctions against Israel or even a call for a reduction in unconditional military and economic aid to Israel"); and the Economic engagement as an alternative to sanctions section (based largely on CATO) is... interesting, but totally disconnected from the rest of the article. To be honest, I was initially expecting something akin to Public opinion on United States sanctions, which may or may not have sufficient coverage in reliable sources to justify an article, but "Perceptions of the United States sanctions" is a glorified user essay critiquing U.S. foreign policy in a subjective, WP:POV fashion, with a primary (but by no means exclusive) focus on sanctions. It's not really a distinct topic for an article. TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article released yesterday, so it would take me some time to improve it. Ghazaalch (talk) 09:13, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment: This page does not really qualify for TNT but I think it would largely benefit from having a significant edit through to see if the page can be made into something encyclopedic. The topic is itself notable with there being numerous protests against US Sanctions and even there have even been 29 consecutive nearly unanimous UN Resolution related to the United States' embargo of Cuba.[1] This page could exist but in a different form than the way it currently exists. I will go through and see what I can do. TartarTorte 14:44, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Public opinion on United States sanctions or International opinion on United States sanctions may be a notable topic, but that's plainly not what this article is about. Narrowing the scope to that topic would, in fact, effectively require WP:TNT or deletion to remove the cobbled-together WP:SYNTH.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you TartarTorte. I have already rearranged sections to what I think is more reasonable. But as you wrote above it should be written in an encyclopedic manner.Ghazaalch (talk) 15:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "UN General Assembly calls for US to end Cuba embargo for 29th consecutive year". UN News. 23 June 2021. Retrieved 14 January 2022.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge With United States sanctions - I see no reason why this can't be a section within the main article - makes sense from a navigational viewpoint. Both articles are well under the size limit. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep and move. czar 22:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Traiteur (disambiguation)[edit]

Traiteur (disambiguation) (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)

Two-item disambiguation page that has a primary topic. Per WP:ONEOTHER. 162 etc. (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the one hand, I don't particularly care too much whatever the outcome. But I'm not sure there is a clear primary topic between these two. Certainly in non-American contexts, the French catering sense would likely be primary. There are several dozen links to the culinary sense while there were only five to the Cajun healer, one of which was erroneous and meant for the culinary sense. older ≠ wiser 18:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:1OTHERPRIMARY and looking at page-view numbers, the numbers are almost 2-to-1 for 2021 for pageviews of Traiteur versus Traiteur (culinary profession). The disambiguation page itself is also essentially unused as Traiteur takes you to the article on Cajun healers, whereas you would have to explicitly go to Traiteur (disambiguation) to even get to this page. Looking at incoming links, there's one in article space and it's coming from Traitor (disambiguation). I think it could be worthwhile to move both of these articles over to Traitor (disambiguation) if this page is deleted, but not necessary. TartarTorte 19:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Traiteur Traiteur (faith healer) and move the dab page to just Traiteur. There doesn't appear to be a clear-cut primary topic. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per above. The faith healer is a bit more popular as an article, but not by a wide enough margin to be a primary topic (the ratio between the views is 5:3 [55]). Add the wider relevance of the culinary meaning (for example, that's the only one listed in the OED)... – Uanfala (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. Please keep this article. A crash occurring on a regional flight resulting in severe injuries should be reported accurately and this crash occurred and remains under investigation by NTSB.

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) 11:08, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Air Flight 2072[edit]

Cape Air Flight 2072 (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 long-term significance, does not appear to meet WP:EVENT. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 09:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Good grief? n the annals of air flight, it is relevant to those that were on this flight. To suggest it should be removed from the safety history of the airline is decieving on the flight and there are articles pa. I doubt there's a single even-local article as much as two days after this. Passes WP:EVENT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Autumnlei (talk • contribs) 05:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to American Booksellers Association. ✗plicit 12:49, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Booksellers for Children[edit]

Association of Booksellers for Children (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)

Article has been tagged as needing more references since 2007. I have added one reference but cannot find more and think this is a non-notable organisation. Tacyarg (talk) 09:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anastasia Michaelsdotter[edit]

Anastasia Michaelsdotter (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'm not sure if this person passes WP:GNG, so I thought I'd bring it to discussion.

I can't find many reliable sources that mention her (Anastasia Michaelsdotter or Stasia Michael) that aren't just interviews or quotes from her, and all of the sources in the article seem like passing mentions or non-independent. The lead also mentions she was featured in a documentary, but if the majority of sources are anything to go by, it could just mean she was mentioned in it.

The original version of the article has 2 sources that may be reliable and/or significant, but they are written around the same time (early 2015), so I'm not sure if that indicates lasting notability (or if it's enough).[56][57]

Her article has also been deleted on the Swedish Wikipedia 4 times for "relevance" (not sure if that's similar to English Wikipedia's notability standard), and this English article was created a month after the first deletion. - Whisperjanes (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - despite an apparently successful career, she seems to lack notability. Her deletion from the Swedish Wikipedia, though it has no bearing here, is still telling, in my opinion. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Is this a vanity page? There's no claim to notability in the article at all. FalconK (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gurdev Sharma Debi[edit]

Gurdev Sharma Debi (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 politician. Claims to have been elected to the Legislative Assembly from the Ludhiana Central Assembly Constituency though no references for the same exist. The correct representative as rightly mentioned in the constituency page is Surinder Kumar Dawar (Source : [58]) with Dabi coming second. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Probable promotion page with the elections drawing near Jupitus Smart 08:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gary S. Usrey[edit]

Gary S. Usrey (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)

Doesn't meet WP:BIO no WP:INDEPTH coverage. One interview is not enough Shrike (talk) 08:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. North America1000 06:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Hamburger[edit]

Anne Hamburger (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 subject fail GNG for not having significant coverage of independent, reliable sources. Cassiopeia talk 05:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This isn't true there are many sources this article just hasn't been properly developed. Here are a few that could be used. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by KNY22 (talk • contribs) 17:54, January 22, 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ {{|https://www.americantheatre.org/2021/05/12/downtown-everythings-waiting-for-you/}}
  2. ^ {{|https://georgetowner.com/articles/2017/10/12/wilderness-urgent-fresh-theater/}}
  3. ^ {{|https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/20/theater/a-dozen-dreams-review.html}}
  4. ^ {{|https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/23/theater/for-big-outdoor-site-specific-stuff-location-location-and-good-weather.html?searchResultPosition=1/}}
  5. ^ {{|https://www.playbill.com/article/free-downtown-live-arts-festival-will-feature-in-person-performances-around-nyc}}

Comment [59], [60] and [61] are not reliable sources. [62] is a broken link. [63] is a paywall article and needs to get info rom RX prior comment (Received article from RX) - it is an interview piece for such it is not an independent sources. Cassiopeia talk 07:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've rewritten the article and would give significant coverage in Forbes and LA Times as the two best sources now on the page. There are also paywalled articles in NYT 1, 2, 3 and WP if someone has access and wants to take a look. Mujinga (talk) 11:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

:Comment: Latinmes and Forbes sources are interview piece for such they are not independent source and thus not meet notability guidelines as for New York time is a paywall source, cant access to comment.

I added in the NYT and WaPo stories, both of which cover her in depth. DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article now clearly demonstrates notability, and I am distressed that the nominator did not do a simple google search to find the mountain of coverage for this person over the past 35 years. This person has had an extraordinary career and really deserves a much better article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. should be kept based on the new provided citations above. Caphadouk (talk) 10:05, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, could be a HEY. Article looks good in its present state. pburka (talk) 04:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sufficient citations was provided demonstrate notability of the subject. Brayan ocaner (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:40, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Goodman (disambiguation)[edit]

Eugene Goodman (disambiguation) (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)

PrairieKid created this in February after moving Eugene Goodman to Eugene Goodman (businessman) around when Eugene Goodman (police officer) received the Congressional Gold Medal. At the time, the two Goodmans were getting roughly equal pageviews. A year later, it's 2,000:1 in the police officer's favor, and 100% of clicks were going his way from the DAB, so I've BOLDly moved his article to be the primary landing page. That leaves this DAB as a ONEOTHER (or, one-and-a-half other, with a "see also" to Gene Goodman). I've added hatnotes to both of those from the police officer's article, which I think renders this DAB superfluous. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 03:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to 2005–06 Wigan Athletic F.C. season#Squad statistics. ✗plicit 03:40, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Waterhouse[edit]

Joey Waterhouse (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)

Technically passes WP:NFOOTY by virtue of a two-minute appearance in a cup game, but no significant coverage to satisfy the GNG. J Mo 101 (talk) 01:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this alleged GNG coverage please? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ✗plicit 03:42, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard G. G. Ramsey[edit]

Leonard G. G. Ramsey (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 one source here is a primary source, and is a public death database. I am not even sure if it has enough information to indicate the linked death is for the same person. My search was able to come up with a few mentions in sources to the works he published, but no reviews, no true coverage of him in a biographical sense, and so few mentions of his work deeply embedded in notes in long books, that there is little prospect. His name does appear in [64], but in a list where they are literally just listing names, they are not even listing dates. These are evidently huge, multi-page sections by nationality and beyond listing the names they say nothing of what these people wrote. It is a database, but one of the most useless databases I have ever seen, since other than the fact that the people included are in some sense "writers" and if you scroll through enough pages you will find the nationality listing, it tells you nothing. It also does not appear to be a reliable source. I see nothing substantial to show notability. Being editor of a publication that is not notable or impactful is not a pass on notability grounds. and being a published writer, or in some ways more a compiler of huge lists of things, in and of itself is not enough to show notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Not even a claim of notability in the article, technically this could be speedied as an A7. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as he has an entry in UK Who's Who https://doi.org/10.1093/ww/9780199540884.013.U168363 Piecesofuk (talk) 15:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have usually accepted the English Who's Who for purposes of notability . And he was editor of very important magazine.The Connoisseur (magazine), unaccountably not linked in the article. (until Idid it a minute or two ago( The article can probably be expanded. DGG ( talk ) 19:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It would be very helpful if someone included a the Whos Who article as a reference. For what it is worth the link above when I click on it just tells me I do not have access.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added the UK Who's Who reference, I'm sure Who's Who used to be available for free from the Wikipedia Library, looks like it's by application only at the moment, if you're in the UK your local library may offer free access. Also I've found that he is generally known as "L. G. G. Ramsey" when searching online. Piecesofuk (talk) 17:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Phoenix[edit]

Lauren Phoenix (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)

Sources fall short of requirements to meet GNG or Ent. Just porn industry chatter and a mention in an article about something else. As a BLP the community expects far better. Spartaz Humbug! 17:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 18:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for entertainers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:15, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 06:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly meets GNG with coverage in generally reliable sources (per RSP) that cannot be overriden by a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, and yes that includes AVN articles like [65][66] etc. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ahem. RSP makes it clear that magazine articles might count per the actual RSN discussion but sources clearly need ti be used cautiously and what you have presented clearly fails the GNG. 1) isn’t clearly in the mag and is an interview so lacks independence. 2) is obviously a reheated press release just from the format and again appears online rather than published. Spartaz Humbug! 19:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      That's not what it says, especially since we discussed the promotional articles on the website within the discussion, and the entry says ... (which is marked as such in search). The cautions are listed on the RSP listing, and the links are not promotional, albeit need to be used with judgement applied (quotations of the individual are less reliable than things in the magazine's voice). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm going to agree with ProcrastingatingReader here. AVN and XBIZ coverage does count in addition to the San Francisco Chronicle article and coverage about American Apparel's controversial ad campaign starring Phoenix discussed in these academic publications [67][68][69][70] Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete does not meet WP:BASIC / WP:ENT. Industry blotter is insufficient for establishing notability, while San Francisco Chronicle is a passing mention. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Criteria 3 of ENT is met by those 4 journal articles. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:BASIC; passing mention, nothing lasting and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 01:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 06:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mandar Agashe[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Mandar Agashe (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)

Procedural listing per close of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 January 2. No opinion from me. Daniel (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral for now. It does seem to have the hallmarks of paid editing. Deb (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (tentative vote). A laundry list of sources have been provided in the DRV linked by Daniel. @SmokeyJoe: checked a few of them and found them passing mentions and/or not indepedent. I've independently clicked on about 5 sources there or in the article itself and felt the same. It's possible there's wheat among the chaff or other better sources available, but someone will need to make a WP:THREE argument if that's the case. Martinp (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Striking, see below. Martinp (talk) 21:42, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaning delete for reasons enunciated by Martinp. I would agree that a source analysis showing specific support for notability is needed in this case. BD2412 T 03:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am the user who queried at the deletion review of this article. And as per my discussion with Martinp, i have been encouraged to participate in this discussion. I believe these can be used as good sources:
There are also google book sources I found and added to the article that seem to be book versions of some magazines:
We also discussed these sources, but Martinp said they are significant coverage but may not be independent:
I am not well versed with all of Wikipedia's policies as a casual reader and editor, but I think the WP:THREE rule is met.  :2405:201:1006:E03A:DC9C:8154:FAE9:3D2C (talk) 06:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks 2405... I've indented your list so it better fits the format above (no worries, formatting here is arcane, and we appreciate your substantive contribution to the discussion.). 2405... came to my talk page to present these sources in response to my tentative delete !vote above, and I encouraged him to participate here instead. As 2405... writes, I took a look at their first attempt at WP:THREE and found some of the sources were probably not sufficiently independent. I haven't reviewed the updated list and won't have time to do so for several days at least. Martinp (talk) 13:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - lots of good RS added here, thanks to :2405:201:1006:E03A:DC9C:8154:FAE9:3D2C (talk) Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep (change from tentative delete, above), with thanks to 2405... for the digging. I would dearly love for more editors familiar with Indian sources to chime in regarding independence, but in the absence of that, I feel SIGCOV is met using the Times of India and Your Tech Story sources in particular, and possibly others. Given WP's North America- and Euro-centrism, I feel if uncertain I should give the benefit of the doubt. Note there will be BLP and BLP1E issues to be worked around in writing the article, as well as possible conflict-of-interest ones too(?), but that's an editorial question not an AFD one. Martinp (talk) 21:42, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 06:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Gyllenbok[edit]

Jan Gyllenbok (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:GNG. Kadıköylü (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Swedish Wikipedia seems to be about a different person. Their books are about business inspiration, word use, and presentation, nothing to do with Historical Metrology. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This seems to be a mixup of two different people with the same name. I've had some contact over the years with the person described in the Swedish article and I don't think that he has anything at all to do with metrology. /FredrikT (talk) 13:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:54, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak Keep. Judging from worldcat, he's the major international authority on the subject--his main work is over 100 libraries, and there's nothing at all comparable besides reprints of older books. This is not a field where we can expect even the greatest expert to be frequently cited. So he is clearly the most influential scholar in the subject. It does raise the question of how far we should narrow "the subject" down in the humanities, The alternative would be to redirect to Historical metrology, where both he and hiswork are already mentioned. DGG ( talk ) 18:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaning keep per excellent points by DGG. I would generally think that a person who is overwhelmingly the single most prominent published authority on a field that is itself notable would themselves by notable. BD2412 T 03:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, yes, DGG is right. The book is published by a very reputable mainstream publisher (Springer), and it's available in multiple formats at a very reasonable price for its size, which is another rough and informal measure of its status. Historical metrology looks at first sight like a geeky little backwater, but it underpins all those historical questions where we need to know how big something was, how much of something someone had; it's actually a hugely important bit of infrastructure for historical studies. So we owe it to our readers to make them aware of the people who have been important in building this foundation. Not the strongest of keeps, but a very reasonable one (with no ill-feeling to the nominator, these things are worth discussing). Elemimele (talk) 09:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Did some quick searches - oddly, there is NO RS establishing his notability, but as per DGG (thank you!), he does appear to be an expert in his field, as established by his large 3 volume encyclopedia (widely referenced and held in libraries). Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the spirit of WP:NACADEMIC #8, "The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area". While encyclopedias are not academic journals, having authored three full encyclopedia volumes about a relatively uncommon academic field and having them published is certainly an accomplished work. Also keep in the spirit of WP:ANYBIO #2, "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field". Ultimately, the encyclopedia is better off and more complete with this article than without it. North America1000 06:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:45, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Friedrich Prehn[edit]

Friedrich Prehn (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:NOLYMPICS. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:NATH as a three-time national champion. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A national champion doesn't have to pass WP:NOLYMPICS, but does still need to pass WP:GNG. I get some hits from the Hamburger Abendblatt for someone born in the 1930s (probably that son mentioned on olympedia?), but nothing on this guy. I wouldn't expect either of the databases I checked to have 90-year-old German news articles, though. Can anyone turn up an obituary in a Hamburg paper? -- asilvering (talk) 03:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Agree w/the above comment. And this has been an issue in a number of nominations by nom. Worth noting - a nomination (such as this one) based solely on an assertion that an article does not meet a non-gng criteria never reflects sufficient wp:before consideration. GNG is always enough. --2603:7000:2143:8500:30CD:F863:CA5C:68FC (talk) 19:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This article at present doesn't pass GNG, though. -- asilvering (talk) 00:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence provided or identifiable that they meet WP:GNG. If such evidence can be provided, I will revise my !vote. BilledMammal (talk) 02:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We keep articles based on sources. No one has presented any additional sources, and the one source is not enough to justify an article on its own.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. And my searches failed to turn up SIGCOV. Cbl62 (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nom. No RS here, chopper. RS, No. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:44, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Multiple national champion. I've added reliable German-language references. Deb (talk) 10:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Deb: From what I can see in snippet view on Google Books, it doesn't appear that either of these German language sources provide significant coverage. All I am seeing is a basic directory listing with minimal biographical detail, and race results. If there is additional information I have missed, please can you provide (translated) quotes from these sources to show they meet the definition of significant coverage? Thanks. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:52, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Since the AfD opened, two new book sources have been added. I can't open. Can anyone verify whether these books include SIGCOV of Prehn, as opposed to passing references or inclusion in charts? Cbl62 (talk) 13:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per my comment above, from the available snippet view, the first one possibly does if there is more to it than can be seen, but the second is purely results listings. wjematherplease leave a message... 13:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've pieced together the snippets, and it simply lists date and place of birth and death, Olympic appearance, best finishes in the national championships (with times), personal bests and the same for his sons. I would say there is not enough to call it significant coverage. wjematherplease leave a message... 15:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree the coverage is trivial and therefore does not meet GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Likewise, I concur that the coverage is trivial, and that it is an unlikely search term. I agree with Wjemather that Deb is missing the point: an assertion of notability is enough to insulate an article from CSD or PROD, but not remotely sufficient for AfD. The only relevant notability guideline is the GNG. This article fails that. Ravenswing 21:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Ron Hamence. ✗plicit 03:46, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Ron Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (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)

Quite similar circumstances to Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 - essentially, Hamence's involvement with the team was "didn't do much". We do not need a fork of his main article, Ron Hamence, which basically just says in 3,204 words that he didn't do much during the tour. Hamence is notable, but this fork isn't. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (2nd nomination) Some direct quotes from the article for you:

  • "Along with Doug Ring, Hamence and McCool called themselves "ground staff" because of their scant playing duties in the major matches"
  • "Hamence and Colin McCool were the only squad members who did not play a Test on tour."

More or less, this article is a giant pile of statistics and repeated material from Ron Hamence and the articles on the team and the games it played. The only thing of any worth here is the "Role" section, which could be merged into Ron Hamence. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_January_22&oldid=1069474360"