Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 January 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< January 25	January 27 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 06:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Isa Baghirov[edit]

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

Notability? Looks like a promotional article on a non-notable topic. Wikisaurus (talk) 19:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. article reminded me of the Lunatic charlatans essay. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 15:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it The person has enough resources. He was a TV presenter on Russia's Channel 1. He is also a book author. I ask for a detailed investigation of the person.--MrTaghizade (talk) 14:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

note: editor is the creator of the article, also claims to (if I understood correctly) to have taken the picture in the article [1] which makes him a possible undisclosed paid editor. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this article is also up for deletion on az-wp: [2] -- asilvering (talk) 05:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I should also add: I don't think these are reliable, independent sources, but I don't want to !vote delete when I can't read them myself. -- asilvering (talk) 05:27, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no serious independent sources. Loew Galitz (talk) 23:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Person is the TV personality but fail WP:BLP and WP:NP henrycruise01
Comment I think we should wait to see if the AZ language article is deleted, and then follow that as a precedent, but I can't read the RS that is in the article, so otherwise can't comment. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:49, 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 redirect to Timeline of Opportunity#Heat Shield Rock and stuck in sand. Sandstein 05:47, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Naturaliste (crater)[edit]

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

One of many tens of millions of metre-scale Martian craters. There is nothing to be said about the crater, as it is only briefly mentioned in the Opportunity logs. A redirect to Timeline_of_Opportunity#Heat_Shield_Rock_and_stuck_in_sand is probably the best option. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also including within the nomination the nearby Argo (crater), which has the same issues, and should redirect to the same section of the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also also including Nereus (crater). Not mentioned in the timeline article, maybe a redirect to List of surface features of Mars visited by Spirit and Opportunity? Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
merge/redirect per nom for all three. Loew Galitz (talk) 00:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Hansen Sebastian^Talk 01:24, 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. ✗plicit 23:52, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon Kinuthia[edit]

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

A county politician surely fails WP:NPOLITICIAN

See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kiambu1 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 22:50, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 22:50, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 22:50, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 22:50, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I’m afraid I don’t see how NPOL is met, I am in agreement with the nominator. Celestina007 (talk) 22:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely fails WP:NPOL. Except for his own self-published campaign 'manifesto' for an election at the lowest tier of local government, the provided sources contain only fleeting mentions or a name on a list, and are in no way about the subject. Incidentally, created by a user later blocked as a sock, this article also has the hallmarks of UPE or at least a very strong COI.. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have reverted the removal of the AfD banner on the page, and added the editor who removed it to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kiambu1 just now Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 09:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. fails WP:NPOL — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrycruise01 (talk • contribs) 09:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. All the sources mentioning him are the very briefest of passing mentions, stating just his name and the constituency he represents. Doesn't pass NPOL or GNG. AryKun (talk) 10:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Has no significant coverage in sources apart from personal blogs which are unreliable Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 08:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per nom. fails WP:NPOL. Alex-h (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. County government is not a level of office that confers an automatic free pass of WP:NPOL, but the substance and sourcing here are nowhere near where they would need to be to make him a special case. Bearcat (talk) 18:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, is far from our notability standards.--Chuka Chief_talk 17:08, 1 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 delete. ✗plicit 12:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead Bank[edit]

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

Unremarkable bank lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 22:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. This bank is only notable at the local level.TH1980 (talk) 03:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. See WP:SERIESA - this isn't a tech company, but it follows the same template. Article is corporate financial history with no broader relevance whatsoever. FalconK (talk) 08:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Does not meet WP:GNG, Alex-h (talk) 17:35, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I Am Student[edit]

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

Film appears to fail WP:NFILM, as there is only 1 review (Times of India). Needs more to pass.

PROD removed by creator. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Two reviews of this, one in The Times of India, and one in The Tribune. I haven't looked otherwise. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:56, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Kiddaan, PTC Punjabi, Cinestaan, Trend Punjabi, Bullet News, Hindustan Bollywood, and The Pollywood. SL93 (talk) 14:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has been reviewed in multiple reliable sources some of which have been added to the article as references to build the reception section, passes WP:GNG, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:35, 31 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) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Butterfly Lovers (2008 film)[edit]

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

Film appears to fail WP:NFILM, as only 1 source cited, which is simply stating box office receipts, and only blog reviews found in a BEFORE. DonaldD23 talk to me 21:55, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 21:55, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 21:55, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Keep I don't blame people unable to do WP:Before in Chinese. But this film clearly has way more google search result. Also, note that Ming Pao back archive has paywall, Apple Daily has been shut down, so that online source is not the whole world of sources.

And i forgot Epoch Times qualify as WP:RS or not. But here is the webpage regarding this film: https://www.epochtimes.com/b5/8/11/7/n2322352.htm Matthew hk (talk) 04:44, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And these are the gossip (aka entertainment) news from Liberty Times regarding the same film.[3][4] Matthew hk (talk) 04:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And as i said, Ming Pao has paywall, but i found a mirrored copy of a Ming Pao article by professional film critic of HK, 石琪, regarding this film https://www.douban.com/note/20078044/ Matthew hk (talk) 04:54, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Keep Search results available in google and also reliable source and casts of movies is also trustful 1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrycruise01 (talk • contribs) 09:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As noted above, seems to be RS for this. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Selected film reviews:
  1. Fonoroff, Paul (2008-10-09). "Butterfly Lovers". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2022-01-29. Retrieved 2022-01-29.
    The film review notes: "It is hard not to rate Butterfly Lovers in terms of its more famous predecessors, like the operatic The Love Eterne (1963), with Betty Loh Tih and Ivy Ling Po delivering unforgettable performances; and Tsui Hark's inspired The Lovers (1994). Charlie Young Choi-nei and Nicky Wu Chi-lung showed what charismatic heartthrobs could do with Liang and Zhu. Hopefully Liang and Zhu will encounter a kinder fate next time."
  2. Teo, Jasmine (2008-10-15). "Short cuts: Butterfly Lovers". The Straits Times. Archived from the original on 2022-01-29. Retrieved 2022-01-29.
    The film review notes: "The premise of the lovers meeting in a third lifetime in this martial arts world is an interesting one. But viewers might want to look to director Tsui Hark's 1994 version (starring Charlie Yeung and Nicky Wu) for a more convincing version of this beloved classic."
  3. Kei, Sek (2008-10-13). "《武俠梁祝》比預期有趣" ["Butterfly Lovers" is more interesting than expected]. Ming Pao (in Chinese).
    The film review notes from Google Translate: "The casting is good, Hong Kong Ah Sa is lively, lively and affectionate, Taiwan idol Wu Chun is very handsome and loyal, becoming a beautiful young couple. This young boy and girl had a predestined relationship in the past life, they fell in love with each other in the beautiful scenery and fell in love in the dream-like Butterfly Valley, which can be regarded as a popular romance."
    It further notes from Google Translate: "This film uses Liang Zhu's culture as martial arts, which can be established in general, but it is far-fetched to turn an infatuated enemy into a wicked and evil one, and the martial arts are exaggerated and distorted. The male protagonist still runs around and talks about the arrow and the sword, which makes people laugh. In the latter part, in addition to fighting and fighting, it also concocted poignant and tragic feelings. In addition, the layout of suspended animation in "Romeo and Juliet" added suspense, which could have turned sadness into joy, but the ending disappointed me."
2. Additional sources:
  1. Juna (2008-08-05). "吴尊最难忘帮阿Sa洗脚尴尬无比感觉像脱衣服" [Wu Zun's most memorable moment was helping Ah Sa to wash her feet: Embarrassing as it feels like undressing] (in Chinese). NetEase. Archived from the original on 2008-08-28. Retrieved 2022-01-29 – via China Internet Information Center.
    The article notes from Google Translate: "Wu Zun and Ah Sa co-starred in the new film "Martial Arts Liang Zhu" which will be released next month. The two attended the Hong Kong Animation Festival today to sign the comic book photo album of "Martial Arts Liang Zhu"."
  2. "'Butterfly Lovers' issue posters". China Internet Information Center. 2008-08-01. Archived from the original on 2022-01-29. Retrieved 2022-01-29.
    The article notes: "Three posters of the romantic action flick "Butterfly Lovers" were released on Thursday, featuring lead actor Chun Wu, Hu Ge and actress Charlene Choi in costumes."
  3. "忙宣傳《武俠梁祝》吳尊外幣虧百萬" [Busy promoting "Butterfly Lovers": Wu Zun lost millions in foreign currency]. Liberty Times (in Chinese). 2008-10-20. Archived from the original on 2022-01-29. Retrieved 2022-01-29.
    The article notes from Google Translate: "Last week, the box office of Butterfly Lovers was about 640,000 in Taipei. Hong Kong fans in Xinyi Roadshow and Jinghua Ximanke Studios on the 19th, each packaged a ticket for idol Wu Zun, about 200 seats each, and bought an additional 200 Several tickets were given to the Good Shepherd Foundation for charity, and nearly NT$140,000 was spent before and after."
  4. 李光爵 (2008-09-18). "吳尊狠腳色出人命踹到武行癲癇發作" [Wu Zun's ruthless role is fatal: Kick to Wuxing epileptic seizure]. Liberty Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-01-29. Retrieved 2022-01-29.
    The article notes from Google Translate: "When Wu Zun was filming the Hong Kong film "Wu Xia Liang Zhu" directed by Ma Chucheng, he kicked the opponent so hard that he had an epileptic seizure and was sent to the hospital for emergency treatment, causing Wu Zun to be dumbfounded on the spot."
  5. 李光爵 (2008-09-09). "哈林尬吳尊零食吃到飽" [Harlem Yu with Wu Zun: All-you-can-eat snacks]. Liberty Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-01-29. Retrieved 2022-01-29.
    The article notes from Google Translate: ""Harlem" Yu Chengqing has good hosting skills and first-class humor. In the new film Butterfly Lovers, he plays the important clown "Uncle Grass Head", which is very tricky inside and outside the play."
  6. "Choi the first choice for Butterfly role". South China Morning Post. 2008-04-19. Archived from the original on 2022-01-29. Retrieved 2022-01-29.
    The article notes: "The director said he wanted the lead character to have a boyish appeal and thought Chung would be too 'girly'. He was about to rewrite it to fit Chung but Ah Sa got back to him and said the film would fit her schedule, so the role went back to her, he said."
  7. Teo, Jasmine (2008-10-17). "Flirt like a butterfly - Actor-singer Wu Chun insists he is just friends with Butterfly Lovers co-star Charlene Choi". The Straits Times. Archived from the original on 2022-01-29. Retrieved 2022-01-29.
    The article notes: "In Jingle Ma's pugilistic version of the doomed romance between Liang Shanbo and Zhu Yingtai, the beloved Chinese classic of the same title, Wu stars as Liang Zhongshan, a senior disciple in Soul Ease Clan martial arts school. He meets Zhu Yanzhi (Choi), who impersonates a man in order to explore the world and learn martial arts."
  8. Chu, Karen (2008-03-17). "Big Media orders Chinese". The Hollywood Reporter. Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2022-01-29. Retrieved 2022-01-29.
    The article notes: "“Butterfly Lovers,” a high-profile action-romance by director Jingle Ma, headlines the 2008 slate. Charlene Choi (“Kung Fu Dunk”), of the pop duo Twins, has replaced her scandal-plagued bandmate Gillian Chung to star with Wu Chun in the update of the oft-adapted folk tale."
  9. Teo, Jasmine (2008-10-31). "now showing". The Straits Times. Archived from the original on 2022-01-29. Retrieved 2022-01-29.
    The article notes: "Director Tsui Hark's 1994 film is a more convincing interpretation of this classic tale of doomed lovers Liang Shanbo and Zhu Yingtai. JT"
  10. "Charlene Choi replaces Gillian Chung in movie". The Straits Times. 2008-04-14. Archived from the original on 2022-01-29. Retrieved 2022-01-29 – via AsiaOne.
    The article notes: "Choi will co-star with Wu Chun, the Brunei-born heart-throb from boyband Fahrenheit, in a movie based on the classic tale of doomed romance between scholarly hero Liang Shanbo and cross-dressing heroine Zhu Yingtai."
  11. Coonan, Clifford (2009-03-12). "Chinese disrupt 'Mulan' shoot: Villagers take revenge for earlier film shoot". Variety. Archived from the original on 2022-01-29. Retrieved 2022-01-29.
    The article notes: "Ma scored big last year with “Butterfly Lovers,” starring Charlene Choi and Wu Chun."
  12. 陈玲莉; 汪现; 孙立新 (2008-02-20). "马楚成来蓉谈不雅照主角：这件事没有谁对谁错" [Jingle Ma talks about the protagonist of indecent photos: no one is right or wrong in this matter]. Chengdu Evening News [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-01-29. Retrieved 2022-01-29 – via Sina Corporation.
    The article notes from Google Translate: "A joint protest was launched, asking Wu Zun to resign from the role of "Liang Shanbo"."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Butterfly Lovers (Chinese: 武俠梁祝) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG per the sources found by Cunard. The movie is a influential film. One of the best films I've ever watched during the my childhood (in India). A sleeper hit movie at that time. I miss my childhood again. VocalIndia (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion that show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:37, 31 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 List of free and recommended Mozilla WebExtensions. Star Mississippi 14:27, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Firefox extensions[edit]

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

A list of Firefox extensions would be too indiscriminate (WP:NOTDATABASE). A comparison of any type of extension is simply not comparing apples to apples. MarioGom (talk) 21:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 21:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 21:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge List of free and recommended Mozilla WebExtensions is where this comparison list should be at. Only list things that have their own articles, or which are recommended by Mozilla. No reason to list every possible add-on that exists, there too many. Dream Focus 21:40, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus: Done. Thanks. --Bawanio (talk) 01:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus: Do you still think List of free and recommended Mozilla WebExtensions shouldn't be on a comparison page? --Bawanio (talk) 04:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge List of free and recommended Mozilla WebExtensions as suggested. Dhawangupta (talk) 10:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above comments. Heartmusic678 (talk) 13:53, 3 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 keep – there's consensus that the topic is notable and that any remaining issues can be resolved through the editorial process. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin in El Salvador[edit]

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

Most of this article is written like an advertisement or press release, and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. The remainder (the Background section) is already covered at Nayib Bukele#Adoption of Bitcoin, and is therefore unnecessary. YttriumShrew (talk) 19:09, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic meets GNG (do I really need to list sources?), and I don't see anything in the nom that questions it. Deletion is not cleanup. JBchrch talk 19:42, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs cleanup but the topic has received enough coverage for a standalone article by now. jonas (talk) 20:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't need a page for X currency in Y country. This article seems like it could be a couple of sentences in the El Salvador article. Maybe someone could spend time discussing the rich history of all of the currencies used in the country - most have been the subject of actual scholarly sources and not just recent news articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:12B0:3000:85A4:3E9A:69B1:D576 (talk) 01:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Wikipedia has guidelines which set forth the criteria according to which we decide whether articles should be kept or deleted. The most important guideline in this area is Wikipedia:Notability § General notability guideline. This guideline states that "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". As you can see, the general notability guideline does not give editors the discretion to decide whether an article on a given topic is "needed" or "not needed": if an topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources, then it is generally suitable for an article, regardless of what editors think about it. The deletion process is about discussing whether a topic has indeed received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I hope this clarifies what this discussion is about and which arguments are suitable in this context. Thank you and happy editing. JBchrch talk 02:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have been editing Wikipedia for about 14 years now. I'd like to welcome you. X in Y articles are almost always of poor form. Thanks for joining the project, we hope you stay :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:12B0:3000:85A4:3E9A:69B1:D576 (talk) 02:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep hugely notable topic covered over a sustained time in numerous reliable sources. This is really an easy Google for anyone but per WP:THREE: [5], [6], [7]. Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Between El Salvador making bitcoin legal tender and the IMF telling El Salvador to not do that at the risk of destabilizing their economy, there very much seems to be enough to write an article that passes WP:GNG. This article will be notable after Bitcoin stops being legal tender in El Salvador, if that happens. TartarTorte 03:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. For better or worse, Bitcoin is being adopted as legal tender in El Salvador and the country's president is trying to tie the country's economy to it. Both the government's promotion of Bitcoin - and the protests against it - have gotten a lot of coverage. It's also unlikely that these developments won't continue to impact El Salvador and receive news coverage in the future. It does seem to be very pro-Bitcoin right now, but fixing that is not a job for deletion. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've started improving the article and adding more sources. It's already in much better shape than it had been at the time this article was nominated for deletion. With a little more expansion, it could even be eligible for DYK. BuySomeApples (talk) 07:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes GNG but takes potentially problematic form. I think this content would be better presented as an article on a specific event, named perhaps 2021 adoption of Bitcoin by El Salvador, which avoids the potentially INDISCRIMINATE nature of a 'currency X in nation Y' article. This issue is solvable using regular editing and does not justify deletion. — Charles Stewart (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nothing that can't be fixed and easily passes notability requirements to be its own article, first country to make it legal tender. --Killuminator (talk) 21:41, 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 delete. ✗plicit 23:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Boston College Eagles men's soccer team[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG. Originally a redirect overturned by User:Quidster4040, who has since been blocked indefinitely, neither of the teams listed below appeared in the NCAA Tournament as laid out in NSEASONS. Consensus resulting in delete specific to 2021 season articles here, here, and here with similar deletion results for other years here, here, and here. GauchoDude (talk) 17:46, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons as listed above:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:55, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:55, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. I think these have been appropriately bundled, based on the existing consensus that they all fail to meet the WP:NSEASONS criteria by failing to qualify for the NCAA tournament. Additionally, I was unable to find significant coverage for each team season, so they appear to fail WP:GNG. Jay eyem (talk) 18:50, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:55, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please re-direct instead of delete as was done with previous season's pages. There are other pages that link to each of these and it will be cleaner if they don't show up as redlinks. Swimmer33 (talk) 20:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Comment to a comment? Comment squared? Per WP:REDLINK, red links should indicate articles that could/should be created, which would be the opposite of what this AfD could result in if delete. Per WP:RPURPOSE, none of those feel like valid reasons for a redirection in this case. As such, in my opinion, the red links should be removed altogether and a redirction here is unnecessary. GauchoDude (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 20:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to Boston College Eagles men's soccer. Season isn't notable enough for article space, but redirects are WP:CHEAP. Spf121188 (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: Yes, and on the flipside is that redirects are WP:COSTLY. As was demonstrated on all 4 of the presented articles, a redirect *was* intially done, then reverted as previously stated and hence the need for this AfD. GauchoDude (talk) 22:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GauchoDude's above comment. Redirect it sounds like would likely be reverted to circumvent this process, so I'll change my !vote to delete. Spf121188 (talk) 13:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all they all fail WP:GNG, and redirecting will just cause problems of them being reverted again. Delete and then recreating the redirect (so the article content can't be reverted back in) would be okay. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:47, 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 per consensus, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 06:37, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of postal codes in Barbados[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a postal directory. –dlthewave ☎ 15:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Barbados-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 15:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:Lists_of_postal_codes exist, there a lot of articles just like this one. A discussion about this should include all articles of this nature. This article was created on September 2006‎. No hurry in dealing with it. Also no valid reason given for deletion. Nowhere is there a rule saying that "Wikipedia is not a postal directory". Wikipedia is a lot of things, a great source of information of all sorts. Dream Focus 20:35, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of articles involving postal codes, and it's not a very long list. Switched it to a sortable table and linked out the parishes which makes it much more useful of a table, though codes for St. George, St. Lucy and St. Peter parishes need to be added. Nate • (chatter) 21:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: there is indeed a rule that says wikipedia is not a directory: WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Other articles that are just lists of postal codes don't follow it either. -- asilvering (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We're not a directory. There is not a lot of context to this article either and a summary of postal codes can already be found in Barbados Postal Service. Ajf773 (talk) 01:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTDIRECTORY. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is just a list with no context offered at all. WP:NOTDIRECTORY, indeed.TH1980 (talk) 04:12, 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 keep. RL0919 (talk) 15:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gigi Parrish[edit]

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

Parrish clearly does not meet the inclusion crieria for actresses. There is no evidence that even one of her roles was a significatn role in a notable production. The current sourcing is to the public record of her marriage, which exist for every legal marriage (although some are lost) and so is not at all a sign of anything, and to IMDb which is not reliable and ultra inclusive. A search for her under her stage name turned up inclusion in lists of actresses, just in lists, where her name is given, between other names, and they are saying nothing of substance about her. A search for her married name turned up nothing. John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. [8], [9], [10], [11]. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG with the four refs provided above. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 23:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Thank you AleatoryPonderings, that RS should be included in the article, supports notability. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Deathlibrarian: Can you please fix your comment's formatting? It looks like I commented twice, but I did not. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, sorry about that, done. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - no issues. Deb (talk) 12:52, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A-Film[edit]

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

Doesnt meet WP:GNG, it appears somebody 15 years ago contested the deletion of the article but then forgor to re-review it after it was finished, and has been tagged since 2020 for not meeting the notability guidelines, with only one reference being the company website. Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 14:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 14:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 14:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:11, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:NEXIST the lack of referencing does not matter, nor does the edit history at creation. Only the existence of sources (often elsewhere) matters. That said, I could not find articles that support notability. Even articles period. Hence my strong support for straight deletion. gidonb (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A-Film does have an article at Nlwiki, not known for quality. This article is referenced only by a press release. gidonb (talk) 20:37, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Gusfriend (talk) 06:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article contains no claim to notability: a distribution firm does not inherit notability from the items which it distributed. No evidence of attained notability provided or found. AllyD (talk) 14:18, 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 Athletics at the 1912 Summer Olympics – Men's marathon. RL0919 (talk) 15:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aarne Kallberg[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG through lack of significant coverage, with the English, Norwegian, and Swedish Wikipedia's all lacking this coverage. Further, a WP:BEFORE search found nothing.

Fails WP:NOLYMPICS due to not medalling. BilledMammal (talk) 14:44, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 14:44, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 14:44, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Olympia and sports reference are both the hyper comprehensive type of sources that do not add up to acceptable coverage according to the inclusion criteria for sportspeople. Non-medalers at the Olympics are not default notable, and other than that we do not have any sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I found two book sources verifying that Kallberg competed but did not finish. It's a pity the Wikipedia article on Athletics at the 1912 Summer Olympics – Men's marathon is so poorly sourced. Deb (talk) 09:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking at the Finnish National Library's newspaper archive [12], there's a not-insignificant amount of hits, but they all seem to be relatively passing coverage, mentioning him as a participant in one competition or another. As an aside, there seems to be a surprisingly large amount of advertisements for sports events, where the event organizers have considered him sufficiently notable to use the name as a marketing tool ("Come view our event, participants include X, Y and Aarne Kallberg!"). I don't think that affects Wikipedia notability, but I found it interesting none-the-less. -Ljleppan (talk) 10:07, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Athletics at the 1912 Summer Olympics – Men's marathon per WP:ATD. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Lugnuts. Seems to be a reasonable solution to preserve what information is here without a separate article. Smartyllama (talk) 18:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Lugnuts. Important we don't haemorrhage information, but I agree this subject doesn't merit a stand alone article. --Jkaharper (talk) 15:04, 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 delete. ✗plicit 14:42, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Helpingminds[edit]

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

I had PRODded on the grounds that I was Unable to identify evidence of organizational notability. The creator came to my talk to contest it, and I have restored and brought it here for discussion. I think it's a worthy organization, but it does not meet WP:ORG unfortunately. Star Mississippi 14:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 14:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 14:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 14:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 14:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant coverage to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 08:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A worthy cause, but a passing mention as one of three organisations assisting students from poor backgrounds is insufficient to demonstrate notability and my searches (which find similarly-named organisations in other countries) are not finding better. AllyD (talk) 13:40, 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 delete. RL0919 (talk) 13:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Youthistaan[edit]

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

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

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

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

Non-notable page, all references is paid news. PQR01 (talk) 13:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This publication has been recognised and has got award. But whenever I am adding that PQR01 is coming and deleting that. It should not be done, rest depend on you guys, I only wanted to say leave this article so that it can be edited and made more informative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunpawargere (talk — Preceding undated comment added 13:35, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Wikipedia page which is marked to be deleted is a competitor of Oneindia which has only few references & is still on wikipedia. The page People News Chronicle has more information and references if compared to this.
~~<continued>~~ Comment Without checking the refrences PQR01 is saying that they are paid references. I have picked up all of the organic article which are not paid. Have a review, paid articles do have disclaimer or a tag. Link 1: https://www.uttarpradesh.org/special-news/youthistaan-and-people-news-chronicle-a-news-and-media-website/ Link 2: https://www.oneindia.com/india/youthistaan-and-people-news-chronicle-exploring-entertainment-industry-3362792.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunpawargere (talk — Preceding undated comment added 17:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Arunpawargere is creator of the article. David notMD (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What concerns me here is that Arunpawargere's argument for why the article should be kept appears to be mostly based on "other stuff exists" and accusing PQR01 of holding some sort of grudge against the page. Neither of those arguments really hold much weight. I had an SA table prepared but found that it really wasn't necessary, because of the alarming fact that most of the citations are placed next to sentences which have nothing to do with the actual sources.
- Source 6 - doesn't say anything about an "inhouse editorial team"
- Source 9 - nothing about an award
- Sources 10, 11, 12 - used to cite the completely false claim that Youthistaan was part of the first "cohort" of Google News India. As far as I can tell, this isn't true at all and isn't supported by any of the three sources
- Source 13 - says nothing about either claim in that section (the 50 articles a day OR the freelance writers)
- Am I missing something incredibly obvious here? Because this looks pretty bad unless there's something weird about the sources I'm missing. casualdejekyll (talk) 23:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/People_News_Chronicle is relevant as Youthistaan's sister publication casualdejekyll (talk) 23:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So sorry, I got it now. Thanks to casualdejekyll for explaining in a better way. As I’m new I was just trying to create the pages which doesn’t exist. I have also created some pages like Kamleshwar Mahadev Temple. Also about this page, yes it should be deleted now, as earlier I thought that we can provide any reference that is present on google, but now I got it, that those references should reference about the words being said, that’s what reference actually is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunpawargere (talk • contribs) 00:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC) [reply]
Wait - so you didn't know that you were supposed to cite your sources? That's.. concerning. casualdejekyll (talk) 00:43, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I studied the content mentioned on the sources, and that content was all about the page I have created. Also now I am getting all of the valid sources, as soon as I’m free from my job, I will be editing the pages I have created and then will add valid references. At this moment I have collected all of the sources and studied them. Only I have to do is, to edit the page I have created and put the references which I got. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4053:710:2f22:cd4e:2821:749d:316a (talk) 00:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC) (Note from DaxServer: This comment is resigned by Arunpawargere)[reply]

Keep casualdejekyll, I have updated the references for Business Model, Organisation and Content at this moment. Now I am going to add references for Recognition also just waiting for you to review the changes I made.Arunpawargere (talk) 14:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's.. a little better, but no amount of article editing can surmount that I believe that this does not pass WP:GNG, except for showing that the topic is covered in sources that are reliable, independent, and contain significant coverage. Also, you've still got the false claim about the cohort, and the other source issues I listed. (How much of what I wrote did you read? Should I be more concise?) casualdejekyll (talk) 16:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Note: this is a duplicate !vote casualdejekyll) casualdejekyll At this moment, all of the references that are with the Wikipedia article talks about the written thing only. Especially, I would request you to check references of Business Model, Organisation and Content.
<continued> Also the important thing here is recognition, which has no references at this moment, but I am having 2 references for that with me, I’m just working hard to get atleast 3 references for that and some more information, which will show its notability.Arunpawargere (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Article is also very promotional. --Yoonadue (talk) 17:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yoonadue What seems to be promotional?

<continued> Comment. Also, After a much research and doing a search for content and references. Now I have given 100% from my side, all of the references speaks about the content that is written their.
~~<continued>~~ Keep (Note: this is a duplicate !vote casualdejekyll) Now, why article should be their:
~~<continued> 1) As it is a leading web portal, which has a competitors Oneindia, Citizen Matters, Mid-Day etc.~~
~~<continued> 2) As compared with the competitors, this news and media organisation has much to talk about and have more valid references.~~
<continued> 3) As, this article will stay, it will be updated regularly, which will help article to grow more as at this moment I’m having some more references on which I can see many more content available on google to write about.Arunpawargere (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Note: this is a duplicate !vote casualdejekyll), websites don't need in-depth coverage Example: Bahrain Online, Mingjing News, Scarsdale Inquirer, The Overtake, they only need non-trivial coverage in multiple independent sources. Youthistaan article is not less, but let’s assume they are less but this doesn’t mean that this subject is meaningless. Sometimes the subject is strong enough to demonstrate its notability.Arunpawargere (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:53, 29 January 2022

Comment. Per my comment on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/People_News_Chronicle, I have struck duplicate !votes from Arunpawargere. casualdejekyll 21:46, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment casualdejekyll Yes, votes might be duplicate but I only added Keep in my every new comment. Also as I have read about voting and all from Wikipedia, it clearly says that for deletition of articles voting doesn’t matters.
~~<continued> Also I would request you to comment on my earlier valid comments which are commented only after taking knowledge from Wikipedia. Arunpawargere (talk)~~ — Preceding undated comment added 21:52, 29 January 2022

- Arunpawargere, the reason I haven't been replying to your comments is because they are mostly repeats of your previous comments - which are you essentially saying WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:ILIKEIT. I'll go back to the other discussion and see if there's anything new to add, but generally I haven't been responding because I don't think there's anything new for me to say. casualdejekyll 22:08, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have you read:
~~<continued> 1) why article should be their (2nd point) 2) websites don't need in-depth coverageArunpawargere (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]

Yes, I have read both.

To clarify my reasons a little more -

"Why article should be their (sic)" - The word you're looking for is "there"

1) This argument is Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS

2) You've shown none of these "valid references"

3) We're not discussing the quality of the article - we're discussing whether or not the subject of the article should even have an article. There's a difference

As per "websites don't need in depth coverage", that is false - see WP:NWEB and Wikipedia:GNG - websites are not special and need the same amount of coverage as every other possible article subject to qualify for an article. casualdejekyll 23:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To sum it all up in one sentence:

As you said, article subjects need non-trivial coverage in multiple independent sources - and you haven't shown that Youthistaan or People News Chronicle have that. casualdejekyll 23:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment casualdejekyll
<continued> Have you tried reading what’s inside references? I have only picked important sentences from the articles that are published on notable media houses. I would again request you to go through them and then take a final decision now. As it’s been so many days we are here looking for solution. I did my best now I am leaving this topic.Arunpawargere (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4053:e15:e02d:79ea:6397:f0a3:c68d (talk) 19:23, 30 January 2022 (UTC) (Note from DaxServer: This comment is resigned by Arunpawargere)[reply]
[User:PQR01|PQR01]] : As PQR01 mentioned at the starting this page has paid articles. After investigating and checking each article those are attached with references aren’t paid. Later on, I have also seen that users are claiming that Wikipedia page has false information, but they aren’t as I have read the articles, all of the things are mentioned in them. So I don’t think this article should be considered for deletition.Ritukaapur (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer Please be aware that the author of this article, Arunpawargere, and the account that attempted an out-of-process close, Ritukaapur, are CU-confirmed to one another. I haven't been able to link them back to a sock puppeteer who is blocked on enwiki, but technical logs connect them both to an account that is globally locked for spamming. Make of that what you will... Girth Summit _(blether) 23:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most refs are press releases or interviews with founder. Some have exact wording match to Organization section, so copyright issue. David notMD (talk) 10:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Sock comments stricken off — DaxServer (talk · contribs) 08:29, 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 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 14:44, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iftikhar Zafar[edit]

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

Does not pass GNG nor WP:NMODEL. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:35, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for models.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:40, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:45, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn, I misread the Tunisian league as 3rd division and not 1st. (non-admin closure) A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 07:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daysam Ben Nasr[edit]

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

Does not pass GNG, google search does not turn up WP:SIGCOV. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tunisia-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NFOOTY, over 30 appearances in the fully professional Tunisian Ligue Professionnelle 1.--Mvqr (talk) 15:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Professional footballer with three seasons in the Tunisian first division, a fully professional league by community standards, and relative coverage. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP:NFOOTY creates a presumption of notability, but per WP:NSPORT it still needs to meet WP:GNG. Looking at the article as it currently stands, there are two database entries, one interview with a non-reliable source, and two WP:ROUTINE articles covering a transfer, with neither appearing to constitute significant coverage as they both contain little aside from statistics about his football career. Can any of the keep !voters find significant coverage of him, as there doesn't appear to be any currently in the article, nor have I been able to find any. BilledMammal (talk) 15:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets NFOOTBALL by some way, and there seems to be lots of coverage when searching his Arabic language name. Article needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 20:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY has over 30 appearances in the fully professional league.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:34, 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 NorthEast United FC. RL0919 (talk) 13:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NorthEast United FC Reserves and Academy[edit]

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

Non-notable youth team. Its only claim is its WP:INHERITed link to NorthEast United FC Cabayi (talk) 13:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 13:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 13:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:46, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 20:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect too NorthEast United FC. Govvy (talk) 23:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect too NorthEast United FC. Non-notable youth teams. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to NorthEast United FC. Certainly not notable as stand-alone article, but strong connection to the target page. Frank Anchor 16:03, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Per WP:RPURPOSE, subject is not inherently notable and should direct to wider, more all-encompassing article. GauchoDude (talk) 18:38, 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. Consensus in this particular case is that the Olympic RFC is not as relevant as he meets the GNG based on English and Finnish sourcing covering other elements of his career. Star Mississippi 14:31, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hannu Vuorinen[edit]

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

No indication of notability, google search didn't turn up anything. Not presumed to be notable under WP:NOLYMPICS, either. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:08, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lots of coverage of him following his death [13], [14], [15]. Don't know if he meets WP:NBOX, but he did fight as professional (according to BoxRec). Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:11, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep represented his country and competed in the Olympics. No debate. --Donniediamond (talk) 13:27, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Donniediamond Athletes from any sport are presumed notable if they have won a medal at the modern Olympic Games, including the Summer Olympics (since 1896) or the Winter Olympics (since 1924) e.g. Ian Thorpe, or have won a medal at the Paralympic Games; e.g. Laurentia Tan (WP:NOLYMPICS) -- just participating is not enough for notability purposes. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:29, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

However, Vuorinen would have needed to win their National title to qualify for the Olympics, which indeed he did in 1983. --Donniediamond (talk) 13:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The RfC said non-medalists at the Olympics are not notable. Keep votes that ignore this rule should be ignored. The additional coverage is not in-depth enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:NSPORT: Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC said non-medalists at the Olympics are not notable Stop perpetuating this incorrectly. The RFC says they aren't presumed notable, but they can pass GNG. Asserting outright that people without medals are not notable is incorrect. Especially when it seems you never bother to WP:BEFORE before commenting. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the RfC may have changed NOLY but he still passes NBOX. To quality for the 1984 Olympics a boxer must have won their national championships. This boxer won the 1983 and 1984 National title and therefore passes NBOX.--Donniediamond (talk) 15:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The first and second source provided by Lugnuts might be significant coverage, but they are identical, so even if they are significant we still need two more sources. The third source is both not significant and not reliable, being a single sentence on a boxing clubs website. WP:NOLYMPICS only presumes notability if the individual medalled, and WP:NBOX doesn't presume notability for winning a national title. BilledMammal (talk) 14:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that is incorrect, the does pass NBOX one of the criteria is to "have fought, as an amateur, in the final of a national amateur championship for an AIBA affiliated and World Amateur Boxing Championship medal-winning country (for Men, see Medal table (1974–present)".

Not only did Vuorinen compete in the a final he won it two years in a row - 1983 and 1984. --Donniediamond (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)--Donniediamond (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Donniediamond NBOX does not supersede GNG. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given that he was a professional boxer, I assumed that the Finnish Lightweight Championship were not an amateur championship. However, even if it was amateur, WP:NBOX only creates a presumption of notability; WP:GNG still needs to be met. BilledMammal (talk) 15:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment he was both an amateur boxer and a professional boxer. Although more noted for his wins in the amateur code. --Donniediamond (talk) 15:39, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, can't read Finnish but willing to AGF its SIGCOV. Plus if he passes NBOX (failing another SNG is irrelevant) more coverage likely exists in his home country (anybody know of a Finnish newspaper archive?). BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks like Finnish sources exist, including some offline ones, there are some more sources at the Finnish article. A WP:BEFORE doesn't look to have been done, and we shouldn't only be looking for English sources to claim "non-notability". Joseph2302 (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The helsingtarmo.fi source is a passing mention, Ilt a sanomat is a large Finnish digital newspaper but I don't know how much their obituaries indicate notability so let's assume they do, and the offline source (Defenders of Our Sports Honors - Representatives of the Finnish Olympics 1906–2000 , p. 363) seems like a passing mention in a book about all Finnish Olympians, while the rest are sports databases. That means in the Finnish article there is one notable obituary and a single page of a book about Olympians, which to me doesn't seem to indicate notability. I'm willing to assume there might be Finnish sources that I'm unaware of and not in the fi.wp article, but it's also important to note that Local sources must be independent of the subject, and must provide reports beyond routine game coverage (from WP:NSPORTS) as well. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 07:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but you've asserted no sources exist in your AFD nomination, and that's been proven incorrect, as some exist. If someone had access to a Finnish language newspaper archive, seems likely there would be more sources, but you shouldn't be expecting English speakers to know and have access to these sources. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:44, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I asserted that I myself didn't find any sources that indicated notability. That's different from saying no sources exist. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems quite adequate. Deb (talk) 19:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His professional career was unremarkable, but his amateur achievements justify inclusion I think. There are further sources available, e.g. [16] - a newspaper source for his olympic result if we want to avoid using stats sites, and [17] - confirms his gold in the Tammer tournament in 1982. --Michig (talk) 21:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not sufficiently well versed with how WP:NSPORTS is usually interpreted, and thus refrain from !voting, but here are a few more Finnish-language online refs: Obituary in MTV uutiset, Obituary in Turun Sanomat, Obituary in Iltalehti (nb: different paper than Ilta Sanomat). Given that these are all very similar in content, I assume the obituary was published originally by the Finnish news wire, Finnish News Agency. I suspect there are other newspaper articles about the subject too, but access to newspaper archives from approx 1950s to early 2000s is tricky, as those papers are not yet accessible via e.g. the national archive's online search, and online news weren't common either. -Ljleppan (talk) 09:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ljleppan thanks for finding those sources. Is there some wiki guideline on obituaries? At least in my city obituaries come out relatively frequently for people of not much notability, but I know things like NYT obituaries are good at establishing notability. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 10:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of any specific guidance on obituaries, but I think this part from a WP:SIGCOV footnote is relevant: "Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information.". If most of these obituaries are based on the same basic news wire text, I'd be hesitant to count them as separate sources for the purposes of SIGCOV. On the other hand, clearly there's a difference between a case where a single local newspaper publishes an obituary, and a case where the national news wire publishes an obituary that is then republished by multiple national newspapers. It's unfortunate that I don't have access to the Helsingin Sanomat news story or to the book Urheilukunniamme puolustajat – Suomen olympiaedustajat 1906–2000 (which is used as a ref in fi.wp) to figure out what the depth of that coverage is. To be quite honest, I don't know how to best interpret this. -Ljleppan (talk) 11:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I seem to have missed a part of your question: these do not appear to be obituaries of the type submitted by e.g. the family (those would called kuolinilmoitus in Finnish, there's a separate section for these in the newspaper, and they are not usually published online). The linked texts are obituaries in the sense of "a news story, under editorial control of the newspaper, written by journalists, where the main news is that someone died." -Ljleppan (talk) 11:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but sometimes there are obituaries in newspapers that are only published in one city or sub-province, (e.g.Deia (newspaper)) A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that those types of obituaries are significantly less persuasive. The ones I linked are rather large by Finnish standards, with at least some being "national" level newspapers. And the original wire (which I'm assuming they are based on) would also be a national thing (perhaps even "Nordic", depending on whether the wire service was also serving Sweden at the time). So on their face, they would appear to be good indicia of notability. But then we get to the point where this appears to be a case of multiple newspapers publishing the same wire story, rather than intellectually separate works. Given that, I'd say the obituaries taken together really count as only one "publication" for WP:GNG purposes. That leaves us in the tricky situation of one good ref (the obits) and two potential references I don't have access to (the book used in fi.wp and the Helsingin Sanomat news story. -Ljleppan (talk) 12:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ljleppan: You can log in to hs.fi and access that article with the username ([email protected]) and the password (8ugmenot). JTtheOG (talk) 22:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. For the benefit of those not speaking Finnish, the Helsingin Sanomat article is kind of a double-bio of Hannu and his brother. I'd say it counts for SIGCOV purposes, given it's 14 paras and 400+ words in what I believe is the largest newspaper in Finland. -Ljleppan (talk) 07:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. In that case we'd have the hs.fi article, the news wire obituary, and likely more in newspapers of the age in Finland that we can't access due to not being digitally available, Ljleppan? A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the access situation to this era of news articles is less than stellar. Here are a few I did manage to find from Helsingin Sanomat (titles rough translations): "Joni Nyman and Hannu Vuorinen to hit it off for a European Championship qualifying match" (12 paras total, discusses multiple boxers), "Nyman heads to EC-qualifiers, Nyholm continues undefeated, Vuorinen to undergo arm surgery" (14 paras total, discusses multiple boxers), Grönroos quits, the gang of three continues (7 paras, with a short mention of Vuorinen: "Finnish professional boxing rests on three [persons]. Joni Nyman, Hannu Vuorinen and Jan Nyholm are the only remaining shirtless, when [two other boxers] hang up their gloves"). Not massively detailed bios or anything, but more than just a match result in a long list. Since he's mentioned in the big national papers, I'd imagine there's additional stuff in regional newspapers etc. but then again I can't promise that and "there might be additional sources" is not a great argument for AFD. Not too certain what to think about this one. -Ljleppan (talk) 12:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – gold medallist and top of their respective sport in non-Olympic competitions so WP:NOLYMPICS notability level isn't relevant here, sufficient amount of sources available too. --Jkaharper (talk) 15:06, 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 delete. ✗plicit 12:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jatin Sial[edit]

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

Has been deleted before twice, once only a year and a half ago, and all five references appear to be interviews. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 09:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 09:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete interviews do not count towards passing sourcing guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 11:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can’t find anything other than interviews, database entries or similar lacking depth. Mccapra (talk) 19:35, 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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 06:38, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rit Harrison[edit]

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

non-notable former National Association player, one of 10 shortstops for the New Haven Elm Citys in 1875 according to here. Aside from that passing mention and a mention in The Rank and File, nothing to confer notability. We do have some biographical details on him (married, died, born) which is better than a lot of the 19th-century permastubs. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we lack any good sourcing that would show an actual passing of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not sure if it counts as a reliable source but there is this profile on him, which indicates there is likely more coverage. Meets NBASEBALL as he played in a National Association match. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is a wordpress blog, so definitely not a reliable source. JoelleJay (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 11:17, 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. The sources provided by Beccaynr have remained uncontested. Sandstein 09:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Phaedra Parks[edit]

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

Non-notable reality show participant. Keeps getting re-created from redirect. Fails GNG, absolutely no in-depth coverage about this person outside show. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable reality televsion star. Wikipedia articles need reliable sources, not one tabloid mention.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Keep I'd expect with that much TV time, there would be something written about her. The article has zero sources. I started the Shannon Singh article, she was only on Love Island UK for one episode and she got a whack of coverage. Would have to dig to find sources for this person, but I'm not interested in doing so. Oaktree b (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added sources and tried to fix some aspects of the page. Samsmachado (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivial accomplishments -- the coverage is the typical tabloid style coverage the show was apparently designed to attract. DGG ( talk ) 18:42, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nom seems to insinuate a WP:BLP1E ("no in-depth coverage about this person outside show", presumably RHOA is the "show" in question), but sources reflect coverage for Parks' book, Covenant, Marriage Bootcamp, and the upcoming RH Ultimate Girls' Trip. It would be confusing and bad journalistic practice for these sources to not mention that Parks did nine seasons of RHOA, but this does not mean that the sources are only reflective of Parks' time on that show. Subject has sustained coverage over a decade, which strongly suggests notability. Meets WP:GNG by People article (per WP:RSP, "There is consensus that People magazine can be a reliable source in biographies of living persons"), EW coverage of RHOA, and Philadelphia Tribune article. Samsmachado (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 11:17, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BASIC/WP:GNG. Reviews of her book include The Philadelphia Tribune, Publishers Weekly and a blurb on Bravo. And there was a long-running defamation lawsuit related to a book published by someone else that included claims about her, covered in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution [18], in addition to the extensive coverage related to her biography and television career, e.g. Atlanta Black Star/Yahoo, 2021, ET Online, 2021, Essence, 2020, BET, 2020, ET Online, 2020, Atlanta Journal Constitution, 2017, ET Online, 2017, Daily Beast, 2017, ABC News, 2016, LA Times, 2014, CNN, 2014, Variety, 2014, Glamour, 2012, People, 2012. Beccaynr (talk) 13:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the number of reviews for her book seem to smash WP:NAUTHOR and GNG. BuySomeApples (talk) 03:38, 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 16:08, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Azrieli Group[edit]

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

Real estate company doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP. The sole independent reference with significant coverage is an article about data centres that Amazon may be building in the future. I don't think this is sufficient to pass WP:NCORP. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is actually a lot of news coming up on them in Google news. I have add additional content and citations to the page, including this recent article which is pretty in-depth and talks about them building the second biggest tower in Israel. Chelokabob (talk) 23:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Delete Just a company. How is NCORP met? Please explain. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By the abundance of in-depth, independent coverage. Please see below. gidonb (talk) 00:26, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fairly strong brochure article that should have been G11'd. scope_creep^Talk 01:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This reaction seems not connected to the article. gidonb (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is connected. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - promotional article by a UPE editor. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A major, notable, Israeli company with much independent, verifiable, in-depth coverage.[19][20] There is not even the beginning of a case for deletion. As an alternative to keep, I have looked into a merge, as the article is short and was identified with its founder. I rejected this idea as the company went public, the founder died, his daughter took over, and there is a lot of coverage and sufficient content from after David Azrieli's life. Finally, the article is very factual and clearly NOT PROMOTIONAL. I did not check if it has been cleaned up and this is a new situation -- as it would not matter. gidonb (talk) 00:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 11:14, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: sources exist but apparently nobody is willing to add them. ––FormalDude talk 13:29, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a major company that's included in a developed country's stock index of largest listed companies. credit rating agency reports alone provide more than sufficient reliable sources. RZuo (talk) 09:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was unable to find anything that meets WP:NCORP. If FormalDude or someone else is willing to add sources that meet NCORP to the discussion, that would be helpful. (RZuo, I updated the formatting of your vote to make sure it is counted.) Heartmusic678 (talk) 13:21, 3 February 2022 (UTC) Keep per Gidonb. Heartmusic678 (talk) 13:24, 3 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 merge to Warmachine. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grind (board game)[edit]

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

Tagged as Unclear Notability since September 2010; only references I can find are either the game for sale, or reviews from around the time of release, with no indication it's made a notable or lasting impact. Pokemonprime (talk) 00:33, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Pokemonprime (talk) 00:33, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What are the reviews you found? Depending on what kind they are, they can count toward notability. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:23, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added two recent reviews, indicating that the game is still around. I've also added some detail about the game itself that readers may find useful. If the nominator is aware of reviews from 2009-2010, those should be added as well. Guinness323 (talk) 23:11, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Guinness323, and at worst failing that it could be merged into a new section in Warmachine. BOZ (talk) 13:39, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 02:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:45, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There Will Be Games solicits content - including reviews and blog posts - from users, describing itself on its submissions page as a "volunteer, non-profit site". We don't accept user-generated sites as indicators of notability for obvious reasons. I don't see any indication that Bell of Lost Souls is any more reliable - no editorial policy or about page, and the post itself is credited to "guest columnist". TV Tropes and Board Game Geek are, of course, user-generated and shouldn't even be cited. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Being non-profit doesn't make a source unreliable. Neither does the pay rate of the writers. What does is editorial control. Their solicitation makes it clear they have editorial standards and they have a editorial staff. Further, this article was written by one of their (former) associate writers. Bell of Lost Souls is, I agree, quite similar but better known and respected IME. [21] shows a strong editorial team. Hobit (talk) 13:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the reasons those who want to keep this article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Those arguing for keep need to show why the sources in the article should be accepted as indicating notability with reference to our guidelines WP:N and why the source review by PMC is not correct. Or else produce sources that are acceptable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 12:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Warmachine per BOZ. I could not find any additional, reliable coverage of the game that would satisfy WP:GNG and allow this page to be a standalone. If the game reviews could be included in the discussion, that could make a stronger case for keeping the page. Heartmusic678 (talk) 12:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
selective Merge to Warmachine, the universe in which the game is set. Probably meets WP:N but A) it's debatable (only two decent sources) and B) there just isn't much to write about. Hobit (talk) 13:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 11:11, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence in the article or in this discussion that significant coverage in reliable, independent sources is available. All significant coverage appears to be in user-generated sources as Premeditated Chaos notes. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:14, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Eggishorn:. What makes these things "user generated?" Are you arguing there isn't editorial control or are you arguing something else? And you are claiming they aren't independent? Aren't reliable? Could you clarify? Hobit (talk) 03:08, 3 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 International Society for Krishna Consciousness. That article already mentions the college per Chisick Chap's suggestion. I see a relist notice was recently posted here, but in my opinion three weeks is enough. The article can always be revived from redirect should appropriate sources ever be found. Ajpolino (talk) 04:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bhaktivedanta College[edit]

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

Promotional article about a religious school with no third party sources. Fails WP:NORG. Venkat TL (talk) 14:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 14:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 14:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 14:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT/MERGE to ISKCON, where it will become one short sentence to say ISKCON has a facility in the Ardennes; for this a primary source is sufficient. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 11:10, 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 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. A redirect to Samsung Galaxy A series might make sense, but I'll leave that for others to decide since there was no discussion of it here. RL0919 (talk) 13:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung Galaxy A01 Core[edit]

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

The article is not notable. I can't find a single reliable source, that gives much information about this phone. It only cites one source, that only gives its specifications. I can't find reliable source giving more information about this phone. Delete it, because Wikipedia is not a directory for everything in the universe. Delete it, unless better sources can be found. Blue Mango Juice (talk) 13:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. TartarTorte 16:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. TartarTorte 16:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 11:10, 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 Kikac Music. Unopposed. Sandstein 09:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uhujimfura Jean Claude[edit]

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

Sources mention him, but aren't about him; they are about his company and the talent show organised by them. I thus redirected this page to the company Kikac Music, but was reverted by the article creator. Suggest redirecting again. Fram (talk) 10:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Fram (talk), Redirecting is good but it is better if you let me look for appropriate references, I am going to improve this article thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proyezu (talk • contribs) 10:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 11:09, 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. ✗plicit 12:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Priyanka Mondal[edit]

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

The subject is previously rejected through afc process, so this article should go through afc process. Please check the creator's talk page for further information. Trakinwiki (talk) 06:06, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Trakinwiki (talk) 06:06, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is the AFD process, not the AFC process, so since you brought if here, could you please tell us which guidelines she fail and why the sources do not warrant an encyclopedic article being written on the subject? Geschichte (talk) 10:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article. Yes it's in bad shape, but the subject seems to be notable, per coverage in Times of India and Indian Express Mujinga (talk) 11:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The film credits may count towards NACTOR, but significance of some roles aren't clear. Falling back to sources, ToI articles on her are all two-three paragraph collections of her quotes. IE Indulge is a "luxury lifestyle magazine", a once-per-week supplement that shouldn't be presumed to be as reliable as the main paper; but setting that aside, the coverage is all shallow interviews that can hardly be considered independent. ABP/Sangbad links are movie announcements which do not mention her at all. There is a bn-wiki page, but it uses same sources as here. This bengali search https://www.google.com/search?q="প্রিয়াঙ্কা+মন্ডল" doesn't seem to turn up much, so I think there isn't enough for WP:GNG. --Hemantha (talk) 10:49, 7 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) 02:31, 12 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) 15:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 11:09, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources are either not reliable or not independent, being a collection of churnalism and low-quality celebrity nonsense. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:56, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of playing significant roles for NACTOR, and lacks independent reliable coverage for GNG. -- Ab207 (talk) 16:01, 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. The argument against deletion did not cite any relevant guideline or policy, nor were the notability concerns adequately addressed. ✗plicit 12:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edgware Walker[edit]

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

I've done some Googling and see no reliable sources, just oblique mentions, chatty mentions or referring to the comedian's video. Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 06:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment someone contacted me to point out this piece from a local paper. Doesn't seem to meet our bar for establishing notability, but wanted reviewers to see it. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 11:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete this article "Edgware Walker". I live in Edgware and have for years, I remember seeing this gentleman, in and around Edgware, many, many times. He was a well known character in Edgware, don't take away any reference to the poor soul. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.47.241 (talk) 11:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Please see WP:BIO. To establish notability, as opposed to 'someone recognisable on the streets of a locality', we need multiple, non-trivial references in reliable source. If you (or anyone else) could provide one or two, the article will not be deleted. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 22:35, 16 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) 15:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 11:09, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that complies with GNG or any applicable SNG. This appears to be sourced entirely to one comedian's routine and some personal recollections and speculations. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:20, 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 delete. Anyone desirous of retrieving the content to draft a better article can file a request at WP:REFUND as usual. Stifle (talk) 16:08, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alois and Josephine Kreiner[edit]

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

PRODded on the grounds that I was unable to find coverage of their work, and Spinningspark challenged the PROD so we're here for discussion. I looked at the sourcing available and present in the German article, but it's extremely limited in terms of reliable sourcing. The books, which are no doubt reliable, are passing mentions, but the web sites which are longer form have questionable editorial oversight, with the obvious exception of Yad Vashem. Their being declared Righteous by Yad Vashem doesn't appear significant either. Happy to be proven wrong as I think all of those who rescued others during the Holocaust should be remembered, but I'm not sure notability is here on this one. Star Mississippi 15:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 15:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 15:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 15:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - see Lexikon der Gerechten unter den Völkern: Deutsche und Österreicher, Vol. 1 p. 322 or other sources in the G-books result. The article needs expansion and improvements but in my opinion it is acceptable as it stands now. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:40, 19 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) 15:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify the article is in an unacceptable state so should not be in the mainspace right now; however, if there are editors dedicated to improving it, there should be a draft for them. – DarkGlow • 18:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I do not think that hiding Jews from the Nazi holocaust necessarily makes a person notable, without anything else. It was certainly bold and praiseworthy, but not necessarily notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 11:09, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify or Delete The article has no references, and the links to G-Books are either short mentions or just the names (or just one name) in a list. Lamona (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or delete per nom. Headphase (talk) 21:43, 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 no consensus. The keep arguments are pretty shaky. Merge seems like a better case, but the overall division of participation makes it hard to call that a consensus. Perhaps a separate merge discussion would be a good next step? RL0919 (talk) 13:52, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of syncretic political parties[edit]

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

This is a list of so-called "syncretic political parties". Syncretic politics is a notable topic but this list appears to be OR as I don’t find any authoritative source that defines which parties should be included in it.. Mccapra (talk) 23:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 23:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 23:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Syncretic politics is a notable area of academic research, that does not mean there are syncretic political parties. Parties (movements, institutions) may deploy syncretic strategies, but I'm not aware of and can similarly see no peer-reviewed research which examines the notion of syncretic political parties. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the same reason as stated on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of big tent political parties. -AndreyKva (talk) 01:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

note: That AfD concluded with deletion Mccapra (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The articles linked to show in the infoboxes their "Political position". Dream Focus 01:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the reasons mentioned above. Archives908 (talk) 02:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think basing a list article on what Wikipedia editors have decided to put into an info box is pretty shaky. There are plenty of RIS that will describe a party as “left-wing”, “centre-right” or so on, and most parties self-describe in such terms. Which parties describe themselves as “syncretic”? Which parties are regularly described as such by RIS? the term is an encyclopedist’s summation rather than a defining characteristic. The sources have been copied from the infoboxes of the original articles, which makes it easier to see the problem. Argentina: Renewal Front - two sources, neither of which uses the term “syncretic” at all. The term is a conclusion drawn by a Wikipedia editor from statements made in those sources. Australia: Democratic Labour Party - ditto. Czech Republic: ANO 2011 the source describes it as “ centrist and populist party based on liberalism and spectral-syncretic politics”. Is this a sound basis for listing it in an encyclopedia as “a syncretic party”? Finland: Crystal Party. The source does not describe the party as syncretic, this is the conclusion of a Wikipedia editor. Romania: Social Democratic Party - the source is an article entitled “ Pragmatism is a winner for “Romanian Left” (emphasis mine) that does not use the term syncretic. Again, this is the inference drawn by Wikipedia editor. So this article seems to me to be a list of inferences by other Wikipedia editors and passing mentions. Mccapra (talk) 05:49, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Syncretic politics. List article does not meet WP:NLIST and having a separate list article increases the risk of WP:FORK. There are no logistical issues with incorporating the list into the parent article. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Syncretic politics per MrsSnoozyTurtle. There's zero reason the list can't just be in the main article. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:47, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not a valid list, IMV, and therefore should not be merged. Mccapra (talk) 08:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 11:08, 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.

Whilst the nominator has vehemently pushed the point that GNG isn't met and made extremely extensive contributions to the debate, I fear we're caught up in another battle of the ongoing SNG vs GNG wars. The lead of WP:N states that passing an SNG means someone is presumed to be notable (and it would be utterly otiose to have SNGs if every article had to also meet GNG). It is not, as far as I can see, disputed that the subject passes an SNG. The presumption of notablity given by passing the SNG can be rebutted, but the consensus of this debate is that it has not been; I also cannot ignore the very considerable numerical disparity between the keep and delete sides with the former a clear leader. As such, the result of the discussion is keep.

I have carefully considered this closure and will not be changing it or adding to it. If you wish to dispute it, please take it to DRV and I waive all requirements to consult with me first. Stifle (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Roshan Meka[edit]

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

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

Two films WP:NACTOR, but no reliable sources for WP:GNG. Sources, both in English and Telugu, are all routine movie announcements/reviews, event galleries/listicles or about his father. Hemantha (talk) 08:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hemantha (talk) 08:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hemantha (talk) 08:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NACTOR; played lead role in two notable films and won a notable award. Film reviews are not routine, they are independent criticism of the work and are primary indication of notability. -- Ab207 (talk) 13:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NACTOR is an Additional criteria which shows People are likely to be notable if they meet it. WP:BIO specifically says about these criteria that meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. A movie review which devotes two lines to the subject isn't the sort of coverage that meets WP:GNG (some of the sourced reviews don't even have a single specific line about him; they combine both stars like "The duo makes the most" and leave at that). Award isn't notable, like say Padma awards, to merit inclusion without sources. Hemantha (talk) 14:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Meeting SNG (much like meeting GNG) means that the subject has merit for inclusion. However, consensus can determine whether the article can be merged elsewhere (such as WP:BLP1E) or deleted for reasons other than notability (WP:NOT). Its not a advocacy for GNG over SNG because an article may still be deleted in the above conditions even after that subject has met GNG. I mentioned the reviews part to support "significant roles in multiple notable films," for the NACTOR requirement, not GNG. Goes without saying that any review rarely spares more than two lines for a single actor because they ought to cover the film in a comprehensive manner. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you say which source covers him significantly enough? Hemantha (talk) 14:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've cast my vote and do not intend to argue over it, but since I see you feel very strongly about it for some reason, I'll answer shortly. Movie reviews are not routine, as you say above (especially not by The Times of India, which positively reviews his performance). Neither is the award he's won. Neither is a leading role in a major production released just a couple of months ago. Both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR support his notability. I don't know this guy, but I think there's a strong case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT here. I think it's better if you withdraw this gratuitous nomination. He's notable, period. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I hardly would've expected aspersions like above from a long-term contributor like you. I request withdrawing them or providing diffs to support the bad faith I'm accused of exhibiting.

On the content of ToI reviews, there's literally two sentences about him in each of them. Also see WP:TOI; its reliability is contested. Hemantha (talk) 11:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No aspersions are being cast or intended to be cast at all. I definitely assume good faith, and that's why I suggested that you consider withdrawing it. Anyway, TOI is perfectly legitimate for film reviews (its reliability is contested in the case of contentious claims), and I can hardly think of more sentences than two for the mention of an actor's work within a film review. It is a review of the film after all, that's how it's done most of the time. But just having gone over Google results with his name, I see plenty of reliable sources, interviews and what not. He's already won an award, and his films are notable, too. I believe he is notable, that's all I can add. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since this raised hackles, I've gone back to see how consensus has evolved about barely passing NACTORs. Josh Hammond case is very similar as well as the recently deleted Anusha Rai. Note that NACTOR doesn't mention awards; the WP:ANYBIO award is for significant ones, a regional "debut award" simply does not apply. I see enough justification to not withdraw.

Year of AfD, AfD	Notes	Result
2021 Anusha Rai	Two films lead (one was AfDed later even though it has similar coverage as Roshan's movies), voters claimed NACTOR fail	deleted in admin closure
2020 Khushi Ravi	Two film leads, one film isn't on en-wiki, but has coverage similar to Roshan's movies, voters claimed NACTOR fail	deleted in admin close
2020 Sree Leela	Lead in two films	draftified in a nac
2020 Shivani Rangole	Lead roles in a film and serial plus more lead roles in serials with no wiki page	deleted in admin close as GNG fail
2020 Anjali Dinesh Anand	Two lead roles in >100 episode serials and an award nom; lots of TOI sources were questioned	deleted in admin close
2020 Josh Hammond	at least three film leads	deleted in admin close with specific comment: 'While WP:NACTOR might be met, consensus is pretty clear that WP:GNG is not'
2020 Lakshmi Devy	barely passed NACTOR, but at least the sources name her in headlines and cover in-depth	keep in admin close
2020 Ashwin Kumar Lakshmikanthan	Two lead roles in serials, multiple film support roles, 'Best Actor in Tamil' award for a short film	deleted in admin close, recreated since
2019 Michael Treanor	two popular film leads	no consensus in admin close with comment 'falls within the letter of WP:NACTOR, which suggests that perhaps the criteria need to be tightened'
2019 Sandile Mahlangu	multiple leads in TV	no consensus in admin close, because GNG fail but plausible NACTOR

Hemantha (talk) 09:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In most of the cases above, including Anusha Rai where I !voted, primary concerns of meeting NACTOR were the notabilty of the films/TV shows' appeared, and whether their roles where significant enough. Here, Meka starred (has the top-billed credit) in two notable films, Nirmala Convent and Pelli SandaD; its a clear WP:NACTOR pass. -- Ab207 (talk) 10:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NACTOR vs GNG debate

In most of the cases above tells me you didn't read any. I request you read Josh Hammond close at least. Anusha Rai too had lead in two local language films, with requisite two reviews in Kannada and similar English coverage (except for Hindu); why you would consider one strong but other weak is beyond me. Hemantha (talk) 12:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rai's films did not have the requisite reliable reviews (atleast two for each film), in fact, her second film was deleted in AfD. In Hammond's case, there was a lack of sufficient evidence whether he played "significant" roles in notable films to meet NACTOR. In any case, each subject is better evaluanted on its own merit rather than trying to draw parellels. With leading roles in two notable films, Meka passes #1 of NACTOR, that's all is needed. -- Ab207 (talk) 13:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting from that close once more While WP:NACTOR might be met, consensus is pretty clear that WP:GNG is not. Your interpretation that NACTOR is all that's needed is at odds with community's, as expressed through past AfDs as well as WP:BIO.

To make it clear once more, I'm claiming that the sources do not meet WP:GNG. None of the arguments above are even engaging with it. Hemantha (talk) 14:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When NACTOR is met (not might), the question of GNG does not arise. Quoting WP:N: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right;". -- Ab207 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:54, 5 January 2022‎

And if you click that link on presumed, the "presumption" is defined as an assumption ... that is taken to be true unless someone comes forward to contest it. This is that challenge; I'm disputing that a two film credit that barely passes NACTOR is enough to prove notability in light of the absence of any significant coverage in independent sources. --Hemantha (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two film credit does pass NACTOR. Deleting an article about a subject that passes SNG which is neutrally written, reliably sourced, long enough to be nominated for DYK, and does not contain any content excluded under WP:NOT is out of principle in the light of WP:PRESERVE. I believe we've both made our points, and I don't think continuing this conversation would be any more productive. It's better to wait for others to chip in and form a consensus. Regards -- Ab207 (talk) 06:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you quote WP:PRESERVE, suggest suitable merge target per Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Failing_basic_criteria_but_meeting_additional_criteria, instead of rehashing the same ~~"NACTOR trumps GNG"~~ argument for the n-th time. Hemantha (talk) 06:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neither SNG nor GNG trump each other, they are just a different set of tools which are used to guage a subject's notability. I believe there is adequate non-trivial coverage from multiple independent reliable sources to justify a standalone article. -- Ab207 (talk) 07:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the disagreement may be from fundamental issues in notability guidelines and/or due to differences between NFILM and BIO/NACTOR. Your assertions would be completely correct with NFILM. NACTOR though is different. I've struck part of my comment above. Anyway if I had read this late 2020 WT:N discussion and the subsequent RfC, I'd have tried to drive this AfD to consider sources than getting bogged down in an SNG vs GNG discussion; which I've done now. --Hemantha (talk) 13:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - for what it's worth, the article is notable per both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR (and yes, if the latter is satisfied, the former can be easily excluded, although it's met too). It's just a redundant nomination, imo, and no offence is meant to the nominating user. The comparison to other articles is exactly the kind of argument one should avoid on such pages. WP:WAX is a useful read - I highly recommend that we all focus on the merit of this particular article. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To focus the discussion towards sources, here's the source assessment. He's been an actor since 2015 and the even the local language press (at least the most important IMO) is accessible via internet. There's not enough even for WP:BASIC.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.ibtimes.co.in/6th-siima-awards-2017-live-updates-tamil-telugu-malayalam-kannada-winners-list-photos-732824		WP:IBTIMES	mention in a list	✘ No
https://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/regional/nirmala-convent-nagarjuna-sets-stage-for-sons-of-srikanth-mahadevan-rahman-and-koti-3022952/			One quote from him, two quotes about him by his parents in an article about a movie	✘ No
https://telanganatoday.com/srikanths-daughter-to-make-on-screen-debut-in-telugu		?	Two lines in a 3 para article on his sister	✘ No
https://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ians/srikanth-s-children-to-play-key-roles-in-rudhramadevi-113072200215_1.html	Agency feed. Article is fully made up of quotes from film director.	?	mentions his role only	✘ No
https://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/movie-review/nirmala-convent-movie-review-akkineni-nagarjuna-roshan-meka-shriya-sharma-star-rating-3034270/			Movie review; single line mention	✘ No
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/telugu/movie-reviews/nirmala-convent/movie-review/54377989.cms		value not understood	Movie review; single line mention	✘ No
https://www.thehindu.com/features/cinema/cinema-reviews/Nirmala-Convent-Needed-more-homework/article14983764.ece			Movie review; single line mention	✘ No
https://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/regional/siima-2017-day-1-shivarajkumar-jr-ntr-rakul-preet-win-big-here-are-the-winners-list-see-photos-videos-4730224/			mention in a list	✘ No
https://www.cinemaexpress.com/stories/news/2020/oct/09/srikanths-son-roshan-to-star-in-pelli-sandadi-sequel-20700.html			Single line mention in a 3 para movie announcement	✘ No
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/telugu/movie-reviews/pelli-sandad/movie-review/87040497.cms		~ WP:TOI	single line mention in 300 word movie review	✘ No
https://www.thehansindia.com/movie-reviews/pelli-sandad-movie-review-rating-2255-78516	?	? no author credited, spells his name wrong	Movie review; three line mention	✘ No
https://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/regional/rudhramadevi-to-release-on-october-9/	? reads like PR	? uncredited, agency post	no mention at all	✘ No
https://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/reviews/pelli-sandad-movie-review-done-and-dusted-old-school-romance/article37017971.ece			movie review; mentioned in two sentence	✘ No
https://telugu.samayam.com/telugu-movies/cinema-news/kovelamudi-raghavendra-rao-pelli-sandad-trailer-released-by-mahesh-babu/articleshow/86420554.cms	? quotes tweets	?	movie announcement; one mention	✘ No
https://www.ntnews.com/cinema/srikanth-meka-son-roshan-trying-to-get-mass-hero-image-in-tollywood-205266	? promotional tone	?	1 para plus 1 quote; mostly focuses on his father	✘ No
https://telugu.samayam.com/telugu-movies/cinema-news/roshan-meka-shocking-comments-in-dasara-bullollu-special-program/articleshow/87016300.cms	?	churnalism content focusing on his tweets		✘ No
https://www.deccanchronicle.com/entertainment/movie-reviews/180916/nirmala-convent-movie-review-outdated-syllabus-in-nirmala-convent.html			230 word movie review; single ungrammatical line mentioning the subject - "As far as performances go, Roshan is is an easy performer"	✘ No
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/telugu/movies/news/look-at-roshan-doesnt-he-want-to-make-you-fall-in-love-nagarjuna/articleshow/54348386.cms	interview	~ WP:TOI	400 word interview with producer, in which subject is asked a single question	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Hemantha (talk) 13:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC) updated Hemantha (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - (sigh) I'm sorry, the above table is pointless, and it is based on nothing but your personal opinion of what constitutes significant coverage rather than what policy says. I can't think of how a film review can give better service to an actor than just mention him in a line. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding to the above, WP:BASIC does not necessarily need substantial coverage from a single source; non-trivial coverage from the various reliable sources also fits the bill. Not every actor gets a mention about their performance in the film reviews. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Shshshsh: and @Ab207: We seem to be meeting up on the same deletion discussions. Maybe an WP:SPI is in order? As for this article which was reviewed by me, my understanding is that he played the sole male lead role in 2 movies, both of which are considered notable by our standards. WP:NACTOR point 1 - significant role (sole male lead) in multiple films (2 in this case) is met which was why I approved this. Since I reviewed this page I will recuse from voting, but just thought you should know the rationale. Jupitus Smart 02:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

misunderstanding of WP:FBDB comment

@Jupitus Smart, For NACTOR and GNG, please see the closure statement of a 2017 rfc, this 2020 discussion on WT:N and the RfC that followed it; all of which I've linked above. I don't expect everybody to be completely aware of policy minutiae, especially one as confusing as WP:N, but to jump to accusations based on partial understanding is bad behavior. I know these are sock-infested waters (I came across this page from one I filed) but I strongly resent the repeated, uncalled-for WP:ABF here and request striking it. Hemantha (talk) 06:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hemantha, arguments aside, I'm sure Jupitus Smart was humourously referring to an SPI on them, Shshshsh and me. It's not an accusation or ABF on you in anyway. -- Ab207 (talk) 07:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(ec with Jupiter) Okay, the wording was confusing. I've struck parts of my comment. Hemantha (talk) 07:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Humour is like the virus, not everybody gets it. You should tone down the WP:ABF though. As I said I am merely stating the rationale for approving this and not getting into voting here. Jupitus Smart 07:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jupitus Smart (talk · contribs): Maybe an SPI is indeed inorder. ;) Anyway, the fact that you reviewed this article doesn't mean you can't vote, quite on the contrary actually. This is not a page for article promotion where some kind of CoI should be avoided, this page determines if this page should stay at all on WP and naturally all people involved or uninvolved (including its creator, not just first reviewer) who have an opinion and can defend it with policy are encouraged to vote here. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Shshshsh: This is probably going to end in a keep anyway, and the nominator somehow seems to be taking this personally, which is a reason why I would rather not be drawn into this. I generally stay away from articles pertaining to the Telugu film industry of which I know little about, but approved this article based on my interpretations of the rules, which I felt obliged to explain. Best. Jupitus Smart 16:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As this has turned into a banter thread, I'd like to greatly thank @Ab207 for challenging me productively here. I've understood so much more about nuances of the WP:N guidelines than I'd have thought possible. I would probably not have found this highly illuminating WT:N thread if not for that exchange above. Hemantha (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Much commenting, not a lot of consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to meet WP:NACTOR. WP:N suggests a subject is presumed notable if they pass either GNG or a SNG and thus passing NACTOR is sufficient in my view. NemesisAT (talk) 11:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NemesisAT, this statement is incorrect. Meeting a SNG is not a substitute for meeting the GNG per WP:SNG: Wikipedia articles are generally written based on in-depth, independent, reliable sourcing with some subject-specific exceptions relating to independence. The subject-specific notability guidelines generally include verifiable criteria about a topic which show that appropriate sourcing likely exists for that topic. Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia. Meeting WP:NACTOR is only an indication that an article subject probably passes WP:N. That is a rebuttable presumption and when it is called into question sources demonstrating WP:N compliance must be found. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the same as GNG, it's a presumption. I don't think the quote you shared disproves my statement. Frequently, "passes WP:GNG" is used as a reason for keeping an article. My point was that the wording of WP:N suggests that the SNGs can be used as an alternative to GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 17:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@NemesisAT:, a well-attended Village Pump RfC found otherwise: There is clear consensus that no subject-specific notability guideline, including Notability (sports) is a replacement for or supercedes the General Notability Guideline.. Hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a direct contradiction to what it says at WP:N, I've got to ask why nobody has changed the guidelines then and why a user (who is perhaps ubfa.ilia

This is a direct contradiction to what it says at WP:N, I've got to ask why nobody has changed the guidelines then and why a user (who is perhaps unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works) observe an old archived conversation from 2017 instead of our current guidelines. I know this isn't your fault as such. NemesisAT (talk) 23:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All that said, I do see sourcing that indicates "significant coverage in reliable, independent sources" within the context of Indian cinema (accepting that assessing independence of any coverage of that subject is difficult at best). Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Eggishorn: Did you see the source assessment I did before? I'm only asking so that I know which source I mis-labeled as insignificant and since you clearly have a lot of experience in notability questions. hemantha (brief) 03:58, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to continue discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 11:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

keep Keep per WP:NACTOR — Preceding unsigned comment added by TishKit (talk • contribs) 12:10, 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 delete. RL0919 (talk) 13:54, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dheeraj Budhori[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Looks like a promotional article on a non-notable topic. Ts12rAc^{talk to me} 11:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete Found nothing on a google search. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 11:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep Found knowledge panel on a google search https://g.co/kgs/HrKTfZ found notability ok with article. And citations appeared to be reliable source Not should be delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheetalnik (talk • contribs) 14:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC) — Sheetalnik (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked sock --Blablubbs (talk) 11:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Google Knowledge Panel is not the stamp of notability. -Hatchens (talk) 15:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Self promotion. Dheeraj budhori himself is the creator of this page. - Hatchens (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it's clear WP:PROMO. -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per this source. Associated with notable Wikipedia:Notability (academics) significant source [22] . Reason of Keeping is that person is also contributor in wikipedia,Good thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrycruise01 (talk • contribs) 05:54, 27 January 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock --Blablubbs (talk) 11:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not a good thing. Contributors have user pages where they can (within limits) write about themselves. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Also being associated with someone notable wouldn't automatically make them notable, as notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The citations appear to be reliable sources published in academic 1 2. User is adding their own page doing self-promotion but fullfiling WP:YOURSELF but i'll not say that it is self promotion because i have able to locate signifcant, reliable, independent coverage book, research 1 2 3 from Amazon which is helpful to verify citation according to wp:book source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pranshu28 (talk • contribs) 08:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC) — Pranshu28 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked sock --Blablubbs (talk) 11:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Merely having a book published is not notable. Are there any independant reviews of his work to meet WP:NAUTHOR? -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment as guidelines in WP:AUTHOR yes I checked from identifier system part of ISO ISNI independent and notable work so it's pass WP:NAUTHOR — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrycruise01 (talk • contribs) 11:44, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - None of the sources linked so far indicate that the subject has achieved any more than to write a self-published book. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete You don't get to write articles about yourself, obviously not notable anyway. Reywas92^Talk 14:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep keep as per WP:YS WP:RS TishKit(talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. TishKit (talk) 04:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock --Blablubbs (talk) 11:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sockpuppetry in this discussion is so inept that it's embarrassing. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:38, 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 delete. ✗plicit 14:53, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nnamdi Ezeigbo[edit]

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

Possible COI article created by the serial sock master Ukpong1/Lapablo on a non notable business man who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. The award the subject won is a non imperative possibly paid for award. Needless to say this article is an WP:ADMASQ. Celestina007 (talk) 10:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 10:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 10:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ANYBIO just a CEO of a non-notable company, nothing notable about his avhivements. Dan arndt (talk) 02:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources and award not relevant Amoeba69th (talk) 01:59, 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 14:54, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

People News Chronicle[edit]

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

Non notable page. All References are paid. PQR01 (talk) 10:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:39, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:39, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:40, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Now article has been updated and trying to remove the promotional content, but I’m not seeing any promotional content on that. So I request, PQR01 to withdraw this and will be adding more information on that page later on. At the present time, article is complete, notable and have all of the information that must be their. Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunpawargere (talk • contribs) 14:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As current improvements are not improvements, this article remains promotional and shows no indication of notability or use of reliable independent secondary sources.Slywriter (talk) 15:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Even the article itself tells us very little about the subject. Maproom (talk) 15:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also This publication has been recognised and has got award. But whenever I am adding that PQR01 is coming and deleting that. It should not be done, rest depend on you guys, I only wanted to say leave this article so that it can be edited and made more informative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunpawargere (talk • contribs) 13:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Without checking the refrences PQR01 is saying that they are paid references. I have picked up all of the organic article which are not paid. Have a review, paid articles do have disclaimer or a tag. Link 1: https://www.uttarpradesh.org/special-news/youthistaan-and-people-news-chronicle-a-news-and-media-website/ Link 2: https://www.oneindia.com/india/youthistaan-and-people-news-chronicle-exploring-entertainment-industry-3362792.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunpawargere (talk • contribs) 13:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Several of the references have verbatim content taken from the article (Lede, Organisation sections), and thus are obvious press releases. David notMD (talk) 15:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Note: this is a duplicate !vote -casualdejekyll) The Wikipedia page which is marked to be deleted is a competitor of Oneindia wich has only few refrences & is still om wikipedia. The pag People News Chronicle has more information and refrences if compared to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4053:402:101E:C9C6:B544:C6AF:6B78 (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Youthistaan is relevant as PNC's sister publication casualdejekyll (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/People_News_Chronicle appears to have been created by Arunpawagere. casualdejekyll (talk) 17:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete' as per WP:RS user:tishkit — Preceding unsigned comment added by TishKit (talk • contribs) 12:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Note: this is a duplicate !vote -casualdejekyll) . Also, After a much research and doing a search for content and references. Now I have given 100% from my side, all of the references speaks about the content that is written their.
~~<continued> Now, why article should be their:~~
~~<continued> 1) As it is a leading web portal, which has a competitors Oneindia, Citizen Matters, Mid-Day etc.~~
~~<continued> 2) As compared with the competitors, this news and media organisation has much to talk about and have more valid references.~~
<continued> 3) As, this article will stay, it will be updated regularly, which will help article to grow more as at this moment I’m having some more references on which I can see many more content available on google to write about.Arunpawargere (talk)Arunpawargere (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:15, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, websites don't need in-depth coverage Example: Bahrain Online, Mingjing News, Scarsdale Inquirer, The Overtake, they only need non-trivial coverage in multiple independent sources. People News Chronicle article is not less, but let’s assume they are less but this doesn’t mean that this subject is meaningless. Sometimes the subject is strong enough to demonstrate its notability.Arunpawargere (talk)2409:4053:68D:12AD:B8B8:9A54:9419:248F (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:09, 29 January 2022
- Comment: It's custom at AfD to not !vote twice or more - you can only have one !vote per person. This is also true in most places where !votes or votes happen. I've struck out your original Keep !votes as I assume this one is supposed to supersede it? If you want to unstrike them, that's totally cool. (They're your !votes, after all.) casualdejekyll 21:40, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PQR01 : As PQR01 mentioned at the starting this page has paid articles. After investigating and checking each article those are attached with references aren’t paid. Later on, I have also seen that users are claiming that Wikipedia page has false information, but they aren’t as I have read the articles, all of the things are mentioned in them. So I don’t think this article should be considered for deletition.Ritukaapur (talk) (This user is a confirmed sock of Arunpawargere) casualdejekyll 16:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC))[reply]
Comment: Sock comments stricken off, along with logged out edits (please inform me if this is out of process) — DaxServer (talk · contribs) 08:42, 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 delete. ✗plicit 14:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deep voice privilege[edit]

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

Nonsensical topic that cites a couple of studies/articles that find some sort of correlation between deep voices and doing better, none of which actually use this term. A search for "Deep voice privilege" turns up Youtube videos, Wikipedia mirrors, and Reddit, none of which establishes notability for this. AryKun (talk) 09:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. AryKun (talk) 09:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A pretty clear violation of WP:SYNTH. While a deeper voice may be correlated to privilege, there are very few sources that explicitly write about "deep voice privilege", a term the creator of the article seems to have made up themself. An article in the Syndey Morning Herald (from 2019, after the Wikipedia article was created) contains the phrase, but that's about it. No notability has been established by the sources used in the article, and most of the material here would be better suited for human voice or social privilege. ArcticSeeress (talk) 11:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For a stand alone article on what amounts to a neologism we need to show both the use of the term and wide application of the concept. At some point people may come up with a broader concept that this falls under, but at present we do not have sourcing that really supports this idea.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:11, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SYNTH one-study executive school theory which if true, Barry White should've been President and a Supreme Court justice. Duke really needs to find better ways to waste their money. Nate • (chatter) 17:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SYNTH and WP:NEOLOGISM. The Sydney Morning Herald piece linked above and the HuffPo source in the article both cite that one Duke study, hardly broad enough coverage to write about this supposed "privilege", and the term itself is obviously a neologism. — Ghost River 00:49, 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 14:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aminoff Suffering Syndrome[edit]

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

This topic fails WP:GNG and is nothing more than one of the many schemes derived by physicians to predict dementia-afflicted EOL patient outcomes in a better manner. It is not good when you can't find anyone other than Aminoff discussing the syndrome across any peer-reviewed media in significant detail. Some interesting comments over here (p. 1741 and 1742.) TrangaBellam (talk) 09:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to the article on Aminoff. Fram (talk) 09:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:44, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree that there is insufficient recognition by anyone other than Aminoff. Fails WP:GNG-- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 17:08, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Too few mentions in RSes and not enough independent recognition. And most of the sources used in the article are PRIMARY, creating a misleading sense of notability. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 01:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable copy-and-paste from a predatory journal. Evident COI editing, too, given that an account named "Ommeog" was copying from "ommegaonline.org". See also the "Entropy definition of Human Happiness and Suffering" from the same Aminoff, which was speedily deleted under G11 and G12, recreated, and then deleted at AfD. XOR'easter (talk) 01:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd also say that the page Bechor Zvi Aminoff looks fishy. Created, infobox and all, by a new editors' 10th edit? No sign of passing WP:PROF, either. XOR'easter (talk) 01:15, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DragonLords[edit]

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

Lacks notability, one review in a specialized magazine isn't enough. No obvious redirect target. Fram (talk) 09:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 09:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 09:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 09:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article by Gary G. is one good RS. I'm not seeing another reliable source that is more than a passing mention. I'd love to see this kept, so ping me if you find something. Hobit (talk) 22:14, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per additions by Guiness and Daranios, but I grant that the best coverage is in niche sources of questionable standing. As an ATD, merging this to the Redfox (comics) article would be preferable to deletion, as Redfox does appear to be more notable than the fanzine in which it originated. Jclemens (talk) 07:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added more information, and another contemporary review. Unfortunately it is difficult to find contemporary sources to describe the UK fanzine scene of the late 1970s. Before the advent of White Dwarf, there were no professional games magazines published in the UK, and early players of Dungeons & Dragons and Traveller relied upon fanzines for new and original material. Circulation of the most popular such as DragonLords was several thousand per issue. However, difficult to find the sources to confirm this -- print media didn't know about the games world back then.Guinness323 (talk) 07:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep That got better in a hurry. Nice work folks! Hobit (talk) 13:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to White Dwarf. The quasi-integrality of the sources are specialized magazines, self-published media, passing mentions or interviews. WP:V is great, but it's notability that's at stake here. And it's clearly lacking. Pilaz (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only source that is ~~independent~~, reliable (as SME), and in-depth is Gary Gygax's. The rest isn't, as far as I can tell. Pilaz (talk) 19:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I think about it: is the co-creator of Dungeons and Dragons really an independent source on Dungeons and Dragons fan magazines? Pilaz (talk) 20:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At the time of the nomination, there was only one review in a secondary source. With the additions based on more secondary sources we are now in my view beyond the requirements of WP:WHYN. I don't consider the fact that a greater part of those are specialized magazines a problem, because Wikipedia is a general and specialized encylopedia - that's the beauty of it. Daranios (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - multiple, independent RS reviews; a clear GNG pass. Newimpartial (talk) 20:43, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvement of article and analysis of sources by users above. BOZ (talk) 19:34, 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 Keep. Nomination withdrawn! (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 21:38, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Superstar (2008 Hindi film)[edit]

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

No citation, not notable. Arunudoy ^(talk) 08:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 10:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 10:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep found source of notability https://g.co/kgs/1Ukcrc
Keep easily notable. Isn't the most basic step before putting an article up for the deletion is to first make sure it really doesn't have sources online (per WP:BEFORE)? Because there are plenty. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment sources added. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as the sources are added, I too to vote for keep and tender my apology for nominating for AfD. Regards - Arunudoy ^(talk) 04:49, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Arunudoy; admin should note that the nominating user seeks to withdraw the nomination. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:00, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Raaj J. Konwar[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:GNG. Lack of reliable citations. Arunudoy ^(talk) 08:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 09:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 09:59, 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. Stifle (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dickson baronets[edit]

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

Unreferenced since 2006. Fails WP:GNG/WP:LISTN, there is no significant coverage at all for the topic of baronetcies created for people with the surname "Dickson". Not a suitable disambiguation page either as it does not actually link to meaningful other topics. FOARP (talk) 13:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment should it not be classified as a WP:Set index article? Thincat (talk) 08:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Part of a huge series on baronetcies per Thincat. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Consistency is important and it makes no sense to have a gap in the series of articles on baronetcies. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This neither disambiguates notable topics, nor is a notable list in itself. No source is provided above to substantiate notability. A set list has the same "criteria for creating, adding to, or deleting" as a stand-alone list per WP:SIA, which means it has to pass WP:LISTN, meaning that multiple instances of significant coverage in reliable sources are required. In this case there is not even one. Not every list of baronets by surname deserves an article. FOARP (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, arguments in nomination are compelling, keep argument makes little sense (we don't keep articles just because they are part of a huge series, they have to be judged on their own merits). Fram (talk) 09:26, 13 January 2022 (UTC):[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.An article on specific 400 year old baronetcies is notable and without doubt useful for anyone using Wikipedia to try to research the titles. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A completely unreferenced article on baronetcies. See also WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:ITSUSEFUL FOARP (talk) 08:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep LISTN is only one criterion at Wikipedia:Set index articles#Common selection criteria, and the guideline states "one or more" of the criteria, not all. "Short, complete list" would be achievable for these; I moved a reference from a linked article, but to make it complete, part of the list would have to be copied from Baron Islington#Dickson, later Poynder Dickson baronets, of Hardingham Hall (1802) for which there is currently no reference. A865 (talk) 01:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Short, complete list" requires that "Its inclusion of items is supported by reliable sources", a single source does not achieve this. Copying references that refer only to one item on the list (and not to the group covered) doesn't get this over the line. FOARP (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More sources have been added, so this non-issue has been addressed. The "group covered" requirement is for a separate criterion ("Notable lists"). And reliable sources doesn't only mean more than one. A865 (talk) 15:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article connects the two creations of the baronetcy, which each have an associated wiki page: (1), (2). It seems we would lose that link if this page is deleted. Also, it's not completely unreferenced as the nominator claims: (3). Ficaia (talk) 11:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's part of large collection of wikipedia pages about baronetcies. And it should be treated as such. All baronetcies were/are discribed in many books. GorgonaJS (talk) 02:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added links GorgonaJS (talk) 02:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The "all baronetcies are notable" and "it's a useful list" arguments appear to be rather weak in terms of guidelines; relisting for more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The sources provided are alphabetical listings of individual baronetcies. There is no indication that there is anything notable this particular grouping of baronetcies, which are completely unrelated other than having the same surname. We already have an article on the surname Dickson including a listing of articles about people with that surname, and everyone listed in that article is included in this one. FOARP (talk) 13:55, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It sounds like you want to get rid of the hundreds of similar articles on baronetcies rather than just this one. Many of them are grouped by surname. For consistency reasons there is no earthly advantage in getting rid of a single article in a large series. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly I'm working on getting the last few articles unref'd from 2006 out of the way. That Wikipedia has tens of thousands of problematic articles is no news to anyone, This is particularly the case for articles created mostly in 2006 or so. My hope, however, is that the other "*SURNAME* Baronetcies" articles are not in as bad a state as this one, and do not simply duplicate material already covered under the surname in question. FOARP (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would not hold out hope on this. Many of them are still sourced with a 2004 template for Leigh Rayment's web directory of baronetages -- something that would be regarded as a clear SPS now, especially considering Rayment admitted to adding incorrect information to his site as "copyright traps" for Wikipedia. JoelleJay (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This "list" doesn't provide information that isn't already covered elsewhere, and the sources do not support linking them (OR). Citations to broad genealogical directories where a baronetcy is listed do not demonstrate notability, and satisfying some completionist fantasy of having each and every peerage and baronetage as a standalone article is not a valid reason to keep. JoelleJay (talk) 21:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and JJ. In particular, the keep arguments arguing it's useful, inherently notable, part of a set, etc., are all unavailing (and all WP:ATA). Having an article on "Dickson baronets" based on sources about barons named "Dickson" is WP:SYNTH unless there are sources about "Dickson baronets" as a group. That's why WP:N requires WP:GNG coverage of the topic. I see no GNG coverage of the topic "Dickson baronets". Levivich 22:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage: Articles on baronetcies should be sorted by surname, i.e. all baronetcies held by people with a particular surname should share an article, regardless of whether they are actually related. The article should be at "Surname baronets" For more information about the project and structure of articles on baronetcies, please, read Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage . GorgonaJS (talk) 23:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This methodology does not seem to be sourced in reliable sources, and instead seems to be something that the old Wikipedia:WikiProject Baronetcies, who were working seemingly entirely off a Geocities-style source (Rayment), invented for itself. For example the official roll of British baronetcies does not group different baronetcies by surname but instead lists them alphabetically as SURNAME of PLACE (see here) in a continuous list. Even when sources, as part of an alphabetical ordering, say SURNAME and then list baronetcies with that surname, this is not saying that SURNAME baronetcies is actually a notable group - they are related solely by having the same surname and we already have list-articles listing subjects under a surname. Whether or not all such lists should be deleted is a subject for further discussion, but in the case of Dickson the sourcing just isn't there. FOARP (talk) 08:43, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Items in set index articles are only required to be of a specific type; there is no requirement for them to have been written about as a group. The surname lists have different selection criteria. Discussion on whether this structure is retained or separate pages are made for each baronetcy can continue on the Wikiproject page. A865 (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But what are the actual items here? They are baronetcies. And what are the actual names of the baronetcies? They are SURNAME of LOCATION - the baronetcies themselves do not actually have the same name, they merely have the same surname but different locations.

This is without even dipping into the fact that there are actually only two items in this list ("The Dickson baronetcy of Sornbeg in Ayrshire" and "The Dickson baronetcy of Hardingham Hall in Norfolk"), neither of which we have an article about, so what is this indexing? The people who had these titles who were notable are already listed at the article for the surname. FOARP (talk) 08:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Keep: to pick up from Thincat's comment at the beginning of this discussion, WP:SIA specifically allows "short complete lists":

"Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. These should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32K) and could be useful (e.g., for navigation) or interesting to readers. The inclusion of items must be supported by reliable sources. For example, Listed buildings in Rivington. If reliable sources indicate that a complete list would include the names of ten notable businesses and two non-notable businesses, then you are not required to omit the two non-notable businesses. However, if a complete list would include hundreds or thousands of entries, then you should use the notability standard to provide focus to the list." This is a list of 8 so the non-notable baronets can be included, and yes, it could indeed be useful for navigation as stipulated.

WP:SIA also gives as an (hypothetical) example of a valid set index article "List of earthquakes named X", which is paralleled by "List of baronets surnamed Dickson".

As for sources, to quote WP:SIA again (plus my bolding):

"10. The introduction to a list that contains every member of the group should identify the source(s) for the complete list, which may be online databases, gazetteers, etc. Results of a general web search are not adequate.

11. List items do not require citations if they only give information provided by the source(s) cited in the introduction to the list. If an item gives more information, that should be backed up by citations."

(a) book sources are acceptable; (b) unless it is being disputed that the standard baronetcies / reference works (Debrett's, Burke's etc) are not reliable sources, the sourcing is there. ~~It's just that no-one has troubled to add it to the article.~~ Many apologies to GorgonaJS, who has done exactly that. Ingratis (talk) 06:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the remaining names. Ingratis (talk) 06:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a list of baronets called Dickson. This is a list of baronetcies granted to people named Dickson. As you may note, some of the people in the list did not even have the specific surname "Dickson", but instead a double-barrelled name, as they inherited the title. This is closer to a list of people killed in earthquakes with a specific name. It is a cross-categorisation similar to the lists of people in unit X that had received award Y that we used to have (see, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Knight's Cross recipients 6th SS Gebirgs Division Nord). Moreover, all of the notable people are already listed at the article for the surname Dickson, so what purpose does this list serve? FOARP (talk) 08:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The page is "Dickson baronets", not "Dickson baronetcies", and there is no complete list at Dickson (surname). There are links to some, but only those with articles, and they are not listed together or in a way that specifies which baronetcy, or even on the same page. It is useful to have this information linked together. A865 (talk) 23:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at other "Foo baronets" pages it's clear that they are intended as set indexes of baronets of the same surname, even if not tagged as such (perhaps a job for the appropriate project, if it still operates). The problem with this article, as you correctly point out, was that it had not been properly developed, but had remained as (in effect) a two-item dab page, and as such was indeed fit for deletion. I don't understand the distinction you are trying to make above: the 8 baronets now listed were all surnamed Dickson, including the last one, although he did indeed change his name later in life to Dickson-Poynder, but there were no further D-P baronets. There is no cross-categorisation of the type you mention. It is not accurate that "all the notable people" are on the Dickson surname list(s), although there is no reason why they should not be, but please refer to the quotation above from WP:SIA on short complete lists which expressly states that a complete list including non-notable entries is OK provided it is not too long, and "if it could be useful (e.g., for navigation) or interesting". The former state of the article was pretty useless, but as reworked I think it stands - WP:ATD. Ingratis (talk) 03:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Literally the first line of this article: “There have been two baronetcies for people with the surname Dickson”. FOARP (talk) 06:42, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Really? all this for that? Ingratis (talk) 07:56, 29 January 2022 (UTC) Fixed. Ingratis (talk) 07:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

....And now it is a duplication of information at Dickson (surname). FOARP (talk) 12:20, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- That is not true, as has been pointed out now more than once. To repeat, this is a set index page, so includes all baronets called Dickson, whether or not independently notable; the Dickson (surname) page can only include those who are notable. It doesn't sound as though you've even troubled to look at it. Ingratis (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability for the combination of Dickson baronetcies. If we're writing articles on baronetcies, each individual one would be better for articles rather than two that just happen to share the same name. (t · c) buidhe 03:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the article as it now is, rather than as it was when nominated. Ingratis (talk) 14:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here's an example of a similar article: (1). I think Ingratis makes a good argument for keeping such articles Ficaia (talk) 13:36, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely hope that a two-item list supported only by one-line mentions in the London Gazette is not emblematic of this type of article. FOARP (talk) 08:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Despite the improvements made in the article, I think the WP:SYNTH argument against this article is very strong: the title gives the impression that a "Dickson baronet" is idiomatic, and while the statement made in the first sentence is true, it does not unambiguously defeat this misapprehension. I take Levivich to be right in considering this article to be a sort of list: for those, we insist that we have SIGCOV of the class the list enumerates. The keep arguments that invoke WP:SETINDEX actually bolster Levivich's argument, since that guideline explicitly describes these as a special case of list articles and cites LISTN as the appropriate notability guideline. That said, both baronetcies docment holders that we have articles on: would it make sense to split this article into two lists, one for each baronetcy? Each, I take it, is documented in the four peerages cited in the article and so should pass our notability criterion for lists. — Charles Stewart (talk) 23:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CSC describes how precisely this type of list ("short complete list") is permitted by WP:LISTN. Both WP:CSC and WP:SIA distinguish between "short complete lists" and "notable lists", which is what you are apparently thinking of. Ingratis (talk) 16:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Genuinely arbitrary lists are subject to WP:INDISCRIMINATE, a policy that applies over and above the notability guidelines: if you choose ten Wikipedia articles at random and create a small-set list from them, your appeal to CSC at AfD will be viewed dimly even though all members are bluelinked. The SYNTH objection is a strong argument against keeping the article in its current form. — Charles Stewart (talk) 17:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete current article per SYNTH and the absence of any good ATD target for the content. Permit recreation of articles on either or both of the two individual baronetcies using REFUND. — Charles Stewart (talk) 17:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There seem to be at least several list articles like this one. For example: (1). Surely it would be inelegant to split them all into two or more new articles. Ficaia (talk) 23:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think our criteria for elegance diverge. Here mine is functional: what is more maintainable and what is more friendly to the reader? Here, the SYNTH issue is to my eye an ugly sore, with the potential to confuse both general reader and casual editor. Two articles have no cost to the reader; cf. WP:NOTPAPER, and the multiplication of burden in watching the articles is slight. — Charles Stewart (talk) 00:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck out my !vote since Ficaia has put together a reasonable realisation of the idea of two articles, strengthening the case for an ATD outcome to this AfD. — Charles Stewart (talk) 02:36, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another example of the same type of article (1) Ficaia (talk) 11:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In a certain sense, the existence of similar articles is a distraction at AfD, unless we have also reached a useful understanding of how to deal with them. In my opinion, in this AfD we're best off figuring out what the best course of action is with any one of them, then once this AfD is closed we can deal with the others. This isn't meant to discourage others from looking for other examples and thinking about how to deal with the whole class, but I think this discussion would best take place elsewhere, e.g., Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage, and just be linked to from here. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:44, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The problem in my view is that there are a bunch of similar X Baronets articles: (2), (3), (4), etc. Should we split them all into articles on each of the baronetcies covered? Deleting them all would be destructive in my view, and I think Ingratis argued well that short index lists have a place on wikipedia. I think we should decide what we want to do with the category as a whole before we make any changes to this particular article. We can either (1) delete them all, (2) split them all, or (3) leave them as be. Ficaia (talk) 13:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a thing that happens often at AfDs: people think there are obviously similar cases, try to deal with them together, but then an already complex AfD becomes derailed because the initially apparent similarity evaporates on closer inspection. The apparent efficiency of dealing with together turns out to be a very costly false economy. For what it's worth, I don't think leaving them be is going to be something I can support, but it might be the case that it isn't the best course of action to treat them all the same. I don't want to argue about the other cases here any more. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:45, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Complex merge to newly created articles on individual baronetcies. The current content of the article is adequately sourced and in principle fit for small-set lists, but its present title and aggregation is not acceptable as I have argued in my comments above. To retain history, we need to use Wikipedia:Splitting. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are literally dozens of these kinds of articles though: (1), (2). If we just split this article and ignore the others we'll be making two outlier articles in a sea of X baronets-type articles. Ficaia (talk) 14:53, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:WHATABOUT, this is no objection to my !vote. — Charles Stewart (talk) 15:52, 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 delete. The keep !votes all come down to an assertion that WP:NCOLLATH is met, but the points made by Onel5969 and Jay eyem suggest that it is not. I am therefore bound to discount all of the keep !votes as having no basis in policy. Stifle (talk) 16:37, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Isaiah Reid[edit]

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

Soccer player who fails GNG and NFOOTY. Existing news coverage comes almost exclusively from local press and a primary source (his university's website). BlameRuiner (talk) 09:16, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:52, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:36, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – meets criterion 1 of WP:NCOLLATH and the coverage is sufficient to write a meaningful and readable biography.Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 06:33, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:05, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the award they won doesn't qualify for NCOLLATH, and they do not meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – meets WP:COLLATH for winning national award. Rylesbourne (talk) 00:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 20:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:COLLATH for winning national award. 2A00:23C7:E915:1201:E473:B71D:61AB:8F29 (talk) 15:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Keskkonnakaitse:, @Rylesbourne: and IP editor: Does the award qualify for NCOLLATH though? @Onel5969: says it does not. Robby.is.on (talk) 09:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Robby.is.on - short answer is no. If you look at the examples listed in the link in COLLATH, all those are seasonal awards, not individual game awards or tournament awards.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I am not convinced that this individual meets WP:NCOLLATH; criteria 1 discusses national awards, but there is nothing comparable to what is listed at Template:College Football Awards; namely, I don't see anything in that template that discusses a "best offensive player for the NCAA tournament" equivalent (the closest being the Walter Payton Award, but I think this is for an entire season). Plus I don't think it's fair to extend inherent notability for these kinds of awards for college soccer without demonstrating that such winners result in significant coverage. I did a quick search for the individual and couldn't find much non-trivial or routine coverage, so I don't see how this guy passes WP:GNG either. Maybe he will someday, but not at the moment. Jay eyem (talk) 15:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails GNG and NFOOTY Footy777 (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 07:19, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. GNG is all that matters here, and he does not meet it. JoelleJay (talk) 18:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I'm seeing some coverage that looks like possible SIGCOV. See for example [23] [24] [25] and [26] (4 is school newspaper). BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hm so I was considering weakening my vote, and maybe still am, but I looked into the first link further and it seems to be the type of local paper (and journalist in particular) that regularly runs well-written, extremely in-depth profiles of high school athletes in the city. I know Reid isn't in high school, but I think a paper that produces 1300+-word articles on things like "No more middle school recruiting, say Rock Hill school officials" ought to be seriously considered in the context of "WP:LOCAL boy makes it big" hype. The non-Rock Hill Herald article isn't SIGCOV, and obviously student newspapers never count towards notability. JoelleJay (talk) 02:26, 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. Consensus is that the sourcing does not meet RS guidelines, and without that there is no GNG pass. Star Mississippi 14:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yoriko Angeline[edit]

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

non-notable actress. fails WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR Behind the moors (talk) 05:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Behind the moors (talk) 05:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Behind the moors (talk) 05:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The first two Tribun cites are a good start in establishing notability and there are other sources out there for example a profile on Viva Mujinga (talk) 10:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above Nyanardsan (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment nothing more than paid coverage. Published in same paper, by the same author, date 1 june, 2 june. We can't consider this independent, multiple, in-depth coverage. Behind the moors (talk) 20:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Behind the moors well argued reasons as to why the coverage we have meets essentially none of the prongs of GNG, let alone all the prongs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete RS looks too weak to me, doesn't establish notability. Fails WP:GNG & WP:NACTOR Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 07:19, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - sources are not a paid websites.... dilan 1990 was the biggest movie in indonesia...she is really famous and notorious! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amoeba69th (talk • contribs) 05:46, 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 per consensus. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 06:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aad Oudt[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG through lack of WP:SIGCOV, with none being provided in our article, in the Dutch article, or being available in a WP:BEFORE search. Did not medal, and so fails WP:NOLYMPICS. BilledMammal (talk) 06:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 06:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 06:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This one in-depth. Maybe others look around for more. Unclear why this had been prodded. Prodding is for more trivial cases. Tradition is that we hold athletes (also in the broad sense) notable under WP:NATH, if no specific guideline for a subject exists, and they participated in the Olympics. Oudt participated twice. gidonb (talk) 07:48, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If Google Translate is correct, the closest that comes to significant coverage of Aud Oudt is a single paragraph, stating The most important man behind the production of the reports on the 1968 Olympics is the swimmer Aud Oudt from The Hague, who hopes to graduate in a few weeks as a tax lawyer. Aad Outdt, who was part of the four-times two-hundred-meter freestyle team in Mexico, is chairman of the Top Sport Committee, which wants to pay more and more attention in the near future to the position of the athlete in social life., which would seem to me to be a trivial mention. You might disagree, but even if you classify that as significant coverage we need multiple sources and we don't have those.

As for the prod, I would think that articles with no significant sources or indication that they exist would be a trivial case. Finally, WP:NATH is limited to "Athletics/track & field and long-distance running", and the fact that the community decided to limit the scope of WP:NOLYMPICS tells us that there is a consensus against your position of presumed notability. BilledMammal (talk) 08:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your reaction is misleading. The text continues to discuss Aad Oudt and to provide information on the sports activist. The article is an in-depth text and Oudt clearly did more than particpation in two (!) Olympics. gidonb (talk) 13:22, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to Google Translate, the rest of the text discusses the Top Sport Committee, and while there are occasional mentions of Oudt, they are clearly not significant. If I am wrong, could you please provide quotes? BilledMammal (talk) 13:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will. It's about the changing committee and Oudt's continuing role in it. This is another in-depth source, discussing Oudt's opinions on top sport in the Netherlands and contrasting these with the opinions of Mieke Sterk. 13:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

And this is the third source. While focused more on the sports achievements of Oudt (the other two are on sports leadership), it also provides biographic information. gidonb (talk) 14:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And this is again in-depth, even in further depth, also totally refuting JPL below. gidonb (talk) 14:08, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:RSUE, can you please provide an English translation of of the relevant section when posting these? Going through them, as far as I can tell none of them constitute significant coverage. The first consists of a single paragraph discussing Oudt which ledes into a broader discussion about sport structures, the second consists of a short transcript of a swimming race, primarily covering Oudt's opponent. The third appears to be Oudt being interviewed about the Top Sport Committee; it has minimal coverage of Oudt, and even for an article about the committee I would question whether we can use it to establish notability, as it doesn't include secondary analysis and thus might not meet the independent requirement. BilledMammal (talk) 14:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BM, by now you have taken this AfD and PRODing (while the deletion is very far from trivial) to four pages. Please try to convince in your intro that you have a case and, if that did not work out, add a couple of responses here but there is no need to spread this so wide. gidonb (talk) 16:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, which four pages? As best I can tell, I have discussed this on the talk page of the article under discussion prior to the AFD, and I am now discussing it here. BilledMammal (talk) 16:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To start with whatever we have "traditionally" done, the guidelines changed in October when we decided that non-medaling Olympians are not default notable. Thus this article needs to pass GNG, and the existing and identified sources are not enough to show notability. Participating in the Olympics is not a sign of notability, and one article no matter how in-depth is not enough to pass GNG. I agree with BilleMammal that the article is not actually in-depth coverage of Oudt, but even if it is, it is not enough on its own to show GNG passing. Participating in the Olympics is not a sign of notability, only medaling in the Olympics is. Unless of course we find multiple, in-depth, indepdent from each other sources that discuss in-depth the person's role in the Olympics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:NATH does not apply, that covers people inbvoled in "athletics", which is essentially the British term for what Americans call "track and field". There are some differences in exactly what the terms cover, but neither are broad enough to include swimmers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is telling that we know this person in 1968 was seeking to become a tax lawyer, but 54 years later we have no clue if he became a tax lawyer or not. That is a classic case of someone not being a public figure. Again, GNG requires multiple sources and that is not met.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:40, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your conclusion is based on an incomplete reading of sources. Meantime the article was edited by nom to contain your incorrect WP:SYNTH. I'll fix that and the typo he insisted on once the article is kept.gidonb (talk) 10:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're slightly misrepresenting the source (relevant section quoted above), and why I reverted your edit that was misleadingly summarized as spelling, but this is the wrong location for that discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 10:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per gidonb. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:39, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- GNG requires multiple sources that meet its parameters, but only one source has been identified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Four have been identified thus far. More may follow but four is what we have right now. Two are sufficient. JPL's other points were also refuted above. gidonb (talk) 20:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've actually counted zero constituting significant coverage based on my review above. Could you provide the quotes that you believe demonstrate significant coverage? BilledMammal (talk) 20:46, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In-depth source #5. gidonb (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I said previously, Per WP:RSUE, can you please provide an English translation of of the relevant section when posting these?. Further, quotes of the specific sections that you believe constitute significant coverage would be useful. BilledMammal (talk) 21:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This is getting quite boring now. A single user obsessed with deleting bios of noted individuals, flanked by his sidekick. Their own edit histories show they have nothing constructive to offer in terms of building pages up – they simply wish to destroy the hard work of other users. There's a point where WP:Goodfaith goes out the window for me, and it's when patterns of non-constructive behaviour amount. User:Gidonb has clearly identified a significant amount of newspaper coverage for this individual. My own searches returned a further two here and here. Arguing that they can't see the significance of the individual because the sources are in Dutch is not an argument. User:BilledMammal has previously been pulled up on their failure to institute WP:BEFORE. It's so important that we conduct thorough searches before nominating articles for deletion. --Jkaharper (talk) 23:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is that I can't see the significance because the first four sources don't contain significant coverage, as documented in detail above. I haven't reviewed the fifth nor the two you have provided, because I see no reason to expect that they are any different. If you disagree and believe that they are significant, then I ask that you provide an English language translation of the contents containing significant coverage - both per WP:RSSE, and the general notion that if you believe a source contains significant coverage, it shouldn't be hard to provide quotations containing said coverage.

Finally, noting the personal attacks, please see your talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 23:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a personal attack. Merely a passive comment about your general conduct on here, and I'm entitled to hold, and to air that opinion. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 23:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you are repeating the conversation here, rather than containing it on the talk page, but as you are: Their own edit histories show they have nothing constructive to offer in terms of building pages up – they simply wish to destroy the hard work of other users this line in particular is indisputably a personal attack, and I would ask that you strike it and the other, similar lines. If you believe there is an issue with my general conduct, then the correct place to discuss that is on my talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 23:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You brought it here also, that's why I'm also responding to that point on here. Wiktionary itself defines a personal attack as something relating to "the individuals's personal circumstances, trustworthiness, or character into question". I touched on none of those, merely your conduct and patterns of behaviour. I don't wish to discuss this any further. If you feel I have done wrong to you then lodge a complaint against me if you wish. Thanks again. --Jkaharper (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming someone has "nothing constructive to offer" and ascribing an intent to "destroy" others' work is pretty clearly a personal attack. JoelleJay (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have a tendency as of late to vote Delete in any AfD involving a sportsperson where there hasn't been a representation of meeting GNG (because it is turning out more and more that many of them DON'T meet the GNG and the NSPORTS rules are just propping up empty nothings of articles). But, in this case, it does appear other editors have presented a significant amount of coverage from the time period regarding this athlete. So it does appear they meet the GNG. I will even helpfully organize the presented references.

"Zachte en harde weg in topsport" [Soft and hard road in top sport]. De Limburger (in Dutch). March 27, 1970. Retrieved January 27, 2022.
Nypels, Frans (March 12, 1969). "Knap Werk Comité Topsport" [Handsome Work Committee Top Sport]. De Tĳd (in Dutch). Retrieved January 27, 2022.
"Voorzitter Comité Topsport mr. A. F. Oudt: Als Ons Plan Wordt Aangenomen Zijn We 2000 Jaar Verder" [Chairman of the Top Sport Committee A. F. Oudt: If Our Plan Is Adopted We Will Be 2000 Years Further]. Leeuwarder Courant (in Dutch). January 3, 1970. Retrieved January 27, 2022.
"Langerhorst: vijfde record" [Langerhorst: fifth record]. Leidsch Dagblad (in Dutch). August 5, 1967. Retrieved January 27, 2022.
Onvlee, Peter (April 3, 1969). "Topsporter vraagt erkenning" [Top athlete asks for recognition]. Trouw (in Dutch). Retrieved January 27, 2022.

And here's an additional one that I found myself.

"Aad Oudt stelde kritisch rapport samen: Overkoepelend orgaan nodig voor topsport" [Aad Oudt compiled a critical report: Umbrella body needed for top sport]. Het Parool (in Dutch). March 27, 1969. Retrieved January 27, 2022.

There appears to be plenty more besides in regards to coverage spanning a couple years in the late 60's, early 70's there. Silver seren^C 02:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed most of those, and found them lacking. For instance, the closest your second example comes to significant coverage is this sentence: The most important man behind the production of the reports on the 1968 Olympics is the swimmer Aud Oudt from The Hague, who hopes to graduate in a few weeks as a tax lawyer. Aad Outdt, who was part of the four-times two-hundred-meter freestyle team in Mexico, is chairman of the Top Sport Committee, which wants to pay more and more attention in the near future to the position of the athlete in social life - and I don't believe that meets the requirements of WP:SIGCOV. If you disagree, could you provide a couple of quotes (perhaps WP:THREE) that you believe demonstrate significant coverage? BilledMammal (talk) 03:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing the source you found, I don't believe it constitutes significant coverage of Oudt, with most mentions of them appearing to be something similar to "Aad Oudt says in his report", "Aad Oudt notes in his report", with the rest being in regards to quotations from him regarding the broader topic - the article seems to be WP:SIGCOV of the report, not of one of its authors. If I have missed a paragraph, could you point me towards its location or otherwise quote it? BilledMammal (talk) 03:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously, per Dutch newspaper results. Drmies (talk) 04:18, 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 withdrawn. Mz7 (talk) 07:40, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grizzy (Grizzy and the Lemmings)[edit]

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

~~Next verse, same as the first two.~~ —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 06:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing - per the results of WP:Sockpuppet investigations/MrBeanEdits, I am withdrawing this AfD in favour of draftifying these and letting G13 take its course. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 07:36, 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 speedily draftified to Draft:She-Bear (Grizzy and the Lemmings). Per WP:DRAFTIFY, this was a newly created article that is clearly unsuitable for mainspace at this time. Mz7 (talk) 07:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

She-Bear (Grizzy and the Lemmings)[edit]

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

Non-notable cartoon character. As with the lemmings, I can't find any source about She-Bear specifically. (String: ["grizzy and the lemmings" she-bear]) —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 06:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:57, 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 withdrawn. Mz7 (talk) 07:39, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lemmings (Grizzy and the Lemmings)[edit]

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

~~Non-notable characters from a show. Wikipedia is not Fandom, and I can't find any sources about the Lemmings specifically.~~ —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 06:46, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Non notable and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a Fandom for Grizzy and the Lemmings. Zippybonzo (talk) 07:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing - per the results of WP:Sockpuppet investigations/MrBeanEdits, I am withdrawing this AfD in favour of draftifying these and letting G13 take its course. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 07:35, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carter Bassett Harrison (1811–1839)[edit]

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

Only source is an EL to the unreliable Find a Grave, although searching is rendered basically impossible because Carter Bassett Harrison was his highly-notable uncle. Aside from being the son of president William Henry Harrison, there isn't really much notable about this fellow. I'm not finding much in the RS aside from some brief mentions in books about his father. WP:NOTINHERITED applies here; he can't get notability just because an uncle, his father, and a nephew were all notable politicians. At most, he warrants a couple sentences in his father's article. Hog Farm _Talk 06:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 06:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 06:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 06:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Find-a-grave in not a reliable source. People do not become default notable just because their father was president of the US, especially if it was their father being president of the US for 30 days.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the nom. Pahiy (talk) 21:18, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:41, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mark A. Sammut[edit]

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

Article was already listed for PROD, see this [27].

The approved consensus is that the subject edited the current article extensively and unproved to be notable. See discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Malta _Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 14:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 14:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 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 keep. There was a rough consensus in favour of the subject meeting WP:GNG. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Filipczak[edit]

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

Passes WP:NBASKETBALL by having played two games professionally, but the presumption of notability is incorrect in this case as they fail WP:GNG, having no significant coverage in the article or through a search, which only turned up a mention in a "Compendium of Professional Basketball". BilledMammal (talk) 05:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 05:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 05:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 05:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A quick search does turn up some SIGCOV. E.g., here. Other coverage shows that he later changed his name to Adam Phillips, complicating searches. Cbl62 (talk) 05:42, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, on-line searches are made more difficult by the fact that The Detroit News' and Detroit Times do not yet have archives that are readily searchable. Cbl62 (talk) 05:44, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems that the guideline WP:FAILN was not followed before nomination, such as working with subject-matter experts or merely tagging the article with {{notability}}.—Bagumba (talk) 08:17, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the user is trying to prove a point, not necessarily collaborate. Rikster2 (talk) 14:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bagumba: There is absolutely no requirement to give a notice period to, or involve, interested parties before nomination. You should note that the advice in FAILN you refer to is preceded by "...look for sources yourself, or:" (emphasis mine). Since the nom confirms that searches have been done, FAILN has in fact been followed. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't say there was a "requirement". If non-experts want to say they did quality research on their own, I suppose there is no explicit rule against that. Well, WP:BEANS.—Bagumba (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - And I didn't say you did; I merely said there wasn't. You did however state that "WP:FAILN was not followed", which is untrue. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Claim of failure to meet WP:GNG is incorrect. A quick search on Newspapers.com returns plenty of coverage in various newspapers. --Jkaharper (talk) 11:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you provide some of that coverage? Cbl62 has provided one example above, but we require multiple examples of significant coverage, not just a single example, and my own subsequent search on Newspapers turned up many passing mentions, but no additional significant coverage, though I may have missed something. BilledMammal (talk) 11:08, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - So what? Things were a lot different in the 1930s. Individual athletes weren't singled out and idolised as celebrities as they are today. Yes, most of the papers on there only dedicate a few sentences to him (or in the examples here and here entire sections) but what difference does that make? The article can easily be expanded to a few paragraphs using these newspaper cuttings, which would be a satisfactory length for this subject in my opinion. We shouldn't be bias against time. Every single professional basketball player at his level today would merit a Wiki article. Many of the newspapers and books from the 1930s covering this subject won't be readily available online. That doesn't mean that we can't expand the article over time. Deleting it is counterproductive. The individual is clearly notable as a professional athlete. --Jkaharper (talk) 13:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - With individual athletes weren't singled out and idolised as celebrities as they are today you seem to be saying that athletes weren't regularly notable in the 1930's, which suggests we should not have articles on all of them. Further, while you have found one example of WP:SIGCOV (your first link consists of less than a paragraph on Filipczak), GNG - which NSPORTS states needs to be met - is not met. BilledMammal (talk) 21:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If someone has a Newsbank account, I believe they could also search The Detroit News archives here. Cbl62 (talk) 14:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. That only goes back to 1999. Cbl62 (talk) 14:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete So people admit that we do not have in-depth coverage that meets the level of GNG. Wikipedia is built on reliable secondary sources, if those sources are not giving a person in-depth coverage than we are best not having an article on them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- No, "people" have not admitted that - looks like the research is ongoing given that the AfD nomination was just put in today. One guy made a statement that you are choosing to interpret as "people." Rikster2 (talk) 14:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: Actually, we do have one example of SIGCOV from the Detroit Free Press. The older issues of The Detroit News and Detroit Times are available on microfilm at the Detroit Public Library, but I no longer live in Michigan, so it's difficult to retrieve those. Cbl62 (talk) 14:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Microfilm!?!?!? Why hasn't it been scanned yet? Why isn't it free on the Internet?—Bagumba (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is SO MUCH stuff not on-line. I find it weird that I can't find a boxscore from the 1980s except when using a paywalled Newspapers.com account. Rikster2 (talk) 19:22, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per NBASKET as well as the coverage found by Jkaharper and Cbl62. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. Other than the Detroit Free Press feature mentioned above, I only found trivial mentions of him, and GNG requires multiple significant sources. On him passing NBASKETBALL, WP:NSPORT, which NBASKETBALL is a sub-section of, makes it very clear that a topic that meets a SNG but doesn't have enough coverage is non-notable as can be seen in the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pete Vainowski and was upheld in its deletion review. If more significant sources are found, I'll gladly change my !vote. Alvaldi (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – passes WP:NBASKETBALL and shows just enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Furthermore, the Detroit Eagles were in the top pro basketball league of the time and only played for a couple years in the NBL, so cherry-picking one player from their very-limited all-time roster is ridiculous. With that latter point, I'm invoking WP:IAR so that the Eagles' all-time NBL player roster is comprehensive. There's also a strong WP:POINTY vibe from some of the voters in this discussion based on experiences with them in previous basketball AfDs. SportsGuy789 (talk) 01:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SportsGuy789: Could you post three of what you consider to be the best significant sources that lead him to pass GNG? Regarding the Eagles, while they are notable as a team, notability is is not inherited, meaning that playing for a notable team does not automatically make a person notable. I'm not sure what strong WP:POINTY vibe you are seeing, could you elaborate on that further? Alvaldi (talk) 10:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep definitely meets NBASKETBALL as well as GNG per above sources cited. Agree with SportsGuy, I think we can invoke IAR to have articles on the Eagles' all-time NBL player roster, but there are enough newspaper sources to get over the hump. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We have one source with significant coverage; that isn't enough to meet GNG. As for NBASKETBALL, it provides a presumption of notability, and per NSPORTS, GNG is still required to be met. Finally, if IAR applies here, then we no longer operate on consensus, we operate on voting. BilledMammal (talk) 01:44, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NBASKETBALL's presumption of notability is a guideline, and there is no time limit on how long it takes to find additional sources. After all, the nomination claims that the only source found was "a mention in a 'Compendium of Professional Basketball' when someone quickly found at least one substantial source. And IAR is policy. Invoking IAR is hardly contrary to operating on consensus. Rlendog (talk) 18:53, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A guideline that NSPORTS states doesn't replace GNG. And this article has had over two years to find sources; if sources haven't been found in that time, and if we have only managed to find one in our in depth search here, then they clearly were not notable. BilledMammal (talk) 21:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NSPORTS does not replace GNG. But is sets up a presumption that a subject that meets NSPORTS meets GNG. And it is very difficult to prove otherwise and therefore refute that presumption for older topics such as this one where most sources would be offline. I am not sure what "in depth" search you are referring to. In your nomination you claimed that the only source was "a mention in a 'Compendium of Professional Basketball'" and yet someone else quickly found a solid on line source, plus some minor on line sources have been found, so your search was clearly not "in depth." No one has claimed to do an in depth offline search that turned nothing up. I have over the years turned up sources for articles that AfD nominators have claimed had no sources, sometimes years after the AfD, so the statement that sources haven't been found in 2 years (when no one was particularly looking) and that only finding one substantial on line source during the limited period of an AfD means that the subject is clearly not notable shows tremendous ignorance and/or arrogance, especially after incorrectly claiming that no no substantial existed in your original nomination. Rlendog (talk) 16:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I haven't had time to research fully but a cursory Google search and quick perusal of Newspapers.com doesn't show much additional. I will do a deeper Newspapers.com review, as well as my personal library of several hundred print resources to see what I can find and let you know what I find and !vote then. He is hamstrung a bit by not having played college basketball, which is where a lot of these guys get substantial coverage prior to their pro careers. Rikster2 (talk) 14:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Still looking for the time to do the physical search, but if anyone has an Ancestry.com account there are some links to newspaper articles here that I can't access that somebody should probably review. Rikster2 (talk) 15:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm still on the fence given he barely meets WP:NBASKET by playing in 2 games. I am finding some hits via NewspaperARCHIVE, but only a few. There is this from an article in the The Sheboygan Press on the team makeup for the newly-founded Detroit Eagles. Part of the issue is because Filipczak went straight from high school to semi-pro and factory teams so he lacks the college coverage that most NBASKET passes typically have. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets NBASKETBALL, which produced a consensus that players such as him are notable. And at least one significant source has been found, not to mention a number of minor sources. Given that most sources from 80+ years ago are not available on line that validates the likelihood that there was at least one other significant source that is no longer readily accessible. Rlendog (talk) 18:53, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Detroit News coverage is a proof of notability, isn't? - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GizzyCatBella: No, passing WP:GNG requires multiple significant sources from more than one reliable publication over a significant period of time, not just a single source. Alvaldi (talk) 11:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say, over a significant period of time? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:1E. BilledMammal (talk) 15:54, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see it say over a significant period of time. But besides that, Filipczak played in multiple professional games (as well as several semi-pro teams), so 1E would not apply to him. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would if all the coverage was about him in a single game. But this isn't relevant; we only have one piece of significant coverage, when we require multiple to meet WP:GNG and keep. BilledMammal (talk) 16:02, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In WP:SUSTAINED. The direct quote is Notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time. Now, we could discuss about who long a sufficiently significant period of time should be but in this case the subject only has one significant source so that would be mute. Alvaldi (talk) 19:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think there is enough coverage to meet our general notability threshold. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rreagan007: As you know, GNG requires multiple significant sources. So out of curiosity, outside of this article, could you post a source that could be considered as a significant coverage? Alvaldi (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alvaldi: This (cited via newspapers.com in the article) also contains significant coverage. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 20:39, 3 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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:38, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Survivors' Insurance (Industry, etc.) Convention, 1933 (shelved)[edit]

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

De-prodded after expiry because apparently it was prodded before, but I did not see a previous prod at the time. No sourcing found. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing to show why it's a notable treaty, although it looks like it was never implemented, so why have an article? Oaktree b (talk) 02:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete No claim to notability, and the ratifications show hardly anyone cared. Needs some degree of third party analysis at least. Mangoe (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to List of International Labour Organization Conventions. ILO seems to have been set up by the League of Nations and to have produced a series of International Conventions, of which his is one. The infobox provides links to two more, which have equally little information. All should be similarly merged or redirected, where there is no substantive article. My target is a list article covering all of these. I take it that shelved conventions are ones that have been superseded by something more recent. They will have been important in their time and hence notable. Notability is not temporary. I am saying merge, because it looks as if there is a link to a website which gives the convention's text. This link needs to be added to the list, along with the statement that it is shelved. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:58, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Invalidity, Old-Age and Survivors' Benefits Convention, 1967, but without the "shelved" part, and similarly all the other "shelved" conventions listed there that were apparently later integrated into the 1967 convention. Possibly merge if anything can be sourced. Sandstein 22:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As far as I can tell, nobody who has ever edited this article included an explanation of what this convention declared or what it means for it to have been shelved. The text includes a quotation, "Having decided upon the adoption of certain proposals with regard to compulsory widows' and orphans' insurance,..." which is an incomplete sentence and doesn't give any indication of which proposals were adopted. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there's a consensus to redirect the article, I'm giving this discussion another round since there are two redirect targets indicated above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2022)} 05:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of notability. Furthermore, there is not only no consensus to redirect, a redirect wouldn't be appropriate even if there was, per WP:XY: there's no obvious redirect target that precludes the other. Ravenswing 11:35, 31 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:31, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Maraynes[edit]

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

Appears to be an autobiography; no significant coverage from any reliable sources; sources are mostly just mentions or stories written by the subject. Awards listed appear to be mostly (if not all) awards for teams, and many aren't particularly notable. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Stub I think the Murrow awards may be enough to meet notability, but I'm not 100% sure. Regardless, this does not need to be his full CV, which is likely copied from somewhere as his entire career isn't what (maybe) makes him notable. Star Mississippi 22:39, 5 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) 01:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO. The Peabodies, Duponts, Overseas Press Clubs, and Murrows are all notable awards and any one of them would meet ANYBIO #1. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 05:01, 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. ✗plicit 12:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arpad Miklos[edit]

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

The only sources from reputable sites (1, 2) only really mention his suicide. The other sources are just publicity. Subject doesn't seem notable to me. Ficaia (talk) 11:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This AfD debate was not added to the daily log. It is now listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 January 12. • Gene93k (talk) 04:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not a lot of coverage, per the usual with porn peformers, but there are non-porn sources like this Out article (1) that assert notability in his field, both as a porn star and escort, and had an unusually long career for gay porn star standards. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak delete: I know this isn't a strongly policy-based argument, hence the "very weak", but: if all an article has for WP:RS is sources that describe the subject's death by suicide... I think we should delete this. -- asilvering (talk) 04:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We do not have adeaquate sourcing. There is no real coverage of him before his death, and the coverage of his death is not of such a large level that it justifies an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:11, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I forgot to mention there are a few other instances of Miklos getting relatively minor mainstream press coverage in multiple outlets for appearing on a line of beach towels for American Apparel in 2010 and when he appeared in Perfume Genius music video for his song "Hood" in 2012. A number of those can be found via google search. So there is more than just coverage of his suicide (albeit not great), and as I mentioned in my first post, there are assertions he was a notable person in his field. Mainstream coverage on porn stars is usually very superficial in nature, so you can't expect a lengthy write up on his life and career. I'm not sure this AFD will get much more participation after almost three weeks now and little discussion. I suspect most people who've seen it don't have a strong opinion one way or the other. Also Miklos has been deceased for a number of years now, so there are no BLP issues to contend with. I'll go ahead and vote Keep while I'm at it. Not my strongest AFD argument, but I think there's enough reasoning in my arguments to justify my vote. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I guess it's subjective, but I don't think references to the subject's commercial interest in a line of beach towels is significant coverage. Ficaia (talk) 14:42, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and/or WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Only WP:SIGCOV appears to be of subject's suicide, which is not a notability criterion in isolation. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:00, 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 Eastwood, New South Wales. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eastwood County Road[edit]

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

One line article solely based on a WP:SPS. Bsbrouw (talk) 04:11, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a near zero chance any reliable sources cover this, since it was never even built. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:27, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Not reliably sourced....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:55, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Eastwood, New South Wales as alternative to deletion. The proposal for this road goes as far back as the 1950s and part of it actually has been built (contrary to what Trainsandotherthings says above). The reservation for the road (which still exists) has been proposed a number of times for various uses (including most recently the Parramatta Light Rail). There are certainly sources for the planned road (the one link on the page includes some documentation sources at the bottom) but they would likely be offline and available via the State Library of New South Wales or similar. In light of the fact this article is not sourced and doesn't meet WP:GNG, as an alternative to deletion I'd suggest redirecting to Eastwood, New South Wales (which already refers to the road) and the article can be recreated at a later point with sources if they can be found. Alternatively, a more appropriate redirection might be to County of Cumberland planning scheme which is what the road formed part of (although the article doesn't currently refer to it). Deus et lex (talk) 00:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Eastwood, New South Wales. Sources available do not support GNG but do clearly indicate that the subject is ongoing and of interest to a wide range of people, so is a likely search term. There are sufficient sources available to expand the relevant content with due weight in the redirect target. Aoziwe (talk) 10:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Aoziwe:. What sources? The article has one source and it is self-published....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look through google results. There are several. See WP:NEXIST. Aoziwe (talk) 12:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Problem is that few of the google results are reliable sources, they are largely either blogs or forums or refer back to the same self-published OzRoads website as this article. Problem with redirecting to Eastwood, New South Wales, is that the mention in that article also relies on the same self-published cite as used in this one. Bsbrouw (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Did you read my comment above? The Eastwood County Road has been part of the Cumberland Plan since the 1950s - there will definitely be newspaper sources over several decades but they're likely to be offline sources accessible through the State Library of NSW. The Ozroad website includes its own sources at the bottom, if you actually read it instead of writing it off as "self-published". Aoziwe's comment and suggestion is sensible and the redirect is a good option as an alternative to deletion. There is no need to delete this. Deus et lex (talk) 11:44, 1 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 delete. ✗plicit 04:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frog Education[edit]

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

This company does not appear to be notable. A news search turns up local news mentions of company employees serving on local civic organisations, a couple of glancing mentions that the company exists, and that's about it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: no verifiable claims of notability. ––FormalDude talk 13:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of any SIGCOV from reliable-independent sources or claim of notability in the article. Brayan ocaner (talk) 23:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't follow WP:CORPDEPTH. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the above. I cannot see evidence of notability or significant coverage of the subject which would merit there being an article. Dunarc (talk) 20:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article originally created by a user with a declared company connection and subsequently developed by a couple of WP:SPAs. The provided references to fastest-growing lists are insufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH. I have added one reference (an assessment of the Frog VLE in Malaysia); aside from that, I can see a local paper interview with the company's co-founder [28], but overall I am not seeing evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 16:27, 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 delete. Consensus is this article does not meet criteria for notability. As the other years' articles were not tagged, nor formally discussed I'm taking no action as far as deletion or merging. Star Mississippi 14:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1963 in Nagaland[edit]

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

Perhaps, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There are no secondary reliable sources discussing events of 1963 in particular in this Indian state of Nagaland as a topic of scholarly interest. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC) Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Kavyansh.Singh, would it be possible to nom 1964 in Nagaland, 1965 in Nagaland, 1966 in Nagaland, 1967 in Nagaland, 1968 in Nagaland and 1969 in Nagaland here as well? None of them are notable on their own and are indescriminate, but maybe together could be merged into 1960s in Nagaland (although that itself is possibly too niche a subject and it could be argued all of them should be deleted as well). If you don't want to do a mass nomination, I totally understand. I don't normally love them myself, but I think it might make sense in this case. TartarTorte 19:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @TartarTorte – Well, I don't think that even 1960s in Nagaland would be a notable topic. I would argue for deleting all the articles, from 1963 to 2022 in Nagaland. But perhaps, for group nomination, it is often a good idea to only list one article at AfD and see how it goes, before listing an entire group (WP:MULTIAFD). If this is deleted, I'll support and nominate for deletion, all 60 articles in Template:Years in Nagaland. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I definitely agree on lack of notability. Seeing as there's no real ATD it seems like the only option at hand is delete. TartarTorte 19:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information then why are there thousands of other (1963 in elsewhere) articles out here? If you can nominate this article then please nominate the other thousands of (1963 in...) articles. User:The Anonymous Earthling (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The Anonymous Earthling – Hi! I understand that you created all these articles in good faith, to improve the coverage of Nagaland on Wikipedia. But, the articles have nothing other than few dates and officeholders, and that does not help the encyclopedia. The argument presented in your keep vote is something which should be avoided in a deletion discussion (See WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST). If you want to contribute to the history of Nagaland, better improve this article. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, you can also nominate 1963 in India, 1963 in the United States, etc because these articles also have nothing other than few dates and officeholders. User:The Anonymous Earthling (talk) 03:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll still wait to see what the outcome of this discussion is before nominating other similar articles of Nagaland. I think "1963 in the United States" has some coverage in relevant sources ([29]), but the existence of that article should not be a reason to keep this. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that the completeness of the US and India article is more reason to keep than the Nagaland article. There is no 1963 in New York for example. I don't like jumping into WP:WAX arguments that much, but I feel that is more apples-to-apples comparison within WAXy territory. TartarTorte 13:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Like every other Indian state, Nagaland is unique (different race, religion, lifestyle, etc). Would be bias if this is not included. We also have countless other similar sub-national articles like 2018 in New York City, 2014 in Maharashtra, etc User:The Anonymous Earthling —(talk) 10:42, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, that would not be biased. We have article on September 2019 events in the U.S. repo market, that does not mean we should create articles for every other month. We don't look for completeness, we look for notability. Do you have any sources which asserts that "1963 in Nagaland" is a topic of scholarly research? I can simply take any newspaper for any random date, and create article for any month, but that would not make it notable. Nagaland is of-course a unique state, but that does not make the article in question notable. And if there are other articles, non-notable as this is, they all would eventually be deleted. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the articles listed, 2018 in New York City is not notable and I'll be AfDing that shortly. 2014 in Maharashtra should also probably be AfD'd to be honest. None of these articles are really notable enough for their own article. TartarTorte 14:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WAXy update: 2018 in New York City was deleted in an AfD along with a few similar year articles for New York City (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 in New York City. TartarTorte 00:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are not sufficient sources that provide significant coverage that demonstrates that this year, in his state, is sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, list articles like this makes it easier to find a particular article based on years and also the expand list section indicates that there are more notable events that might be included in the future. YticagaS (talk) 07:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @YticagaS: If something is helpful, that does not mean it should have its own Wikipedia article. Like I have said before, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". The topic is simply not notable, and if it is, I'll appreciate you providing reliable sources asserting the same. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - If there were any articles about notable events in Nagaland that happened in this year, I would support the existence of this article as a useful navigation tool But as things currently stand, there's nothing to navigate to except for two politicians, which would likely be more easily navigated to via infoboxes within the office position's article or any historical position holder's article. If articles on notable events in Nagaland are created in the future, I would support the recreation or undeletion of this one. Fieari (talk) 04:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: surely the purpose of this article is better served by a navigation template or a category...? -- asilvering (talk) 05:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: Merge and redirect all of the individual pages into a single page 1960s in Nagaland. Once it starts to get some more information on the page a split can be proposed which I would support at that time. The combined page can highlight themes in a way that individual years cannot. For example a summary and timeline section for the 1960s on the 16 point agreement https://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/IN_600726_The%20sixteen%20point%20Agreement_0.pdf and bits from https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/everything-you-need-to-know-about-nagaland-insurgency-and-the-efforts-to-solve/ Gusfriend (talk) 06:42, 3 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 delete. ✗plicit 04:05, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reino de Tigr[edit]

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

This article is a WP:POVFORK created by copying verbatim (without attribution per WP:COPYWITHIN) from three other Wikipedia articles, while many of the citations were not also copied leaving much of the content unsourced. The name of the article is the title of a writing from a 17th century Portuguese Jesuit and is not a phrase used elsewhere or in present time.

Specifically (this version):

"History" section paragraphs 1-4 & 6 were taken verbatim from the Tigray Region article. The 5th paragraph (starting By the beginning of the 19th century) was copied verbatim from the Tigrayans article.
Paragraph 1 of section "First mention of Tigray in ancient sources" was taken verbatim from Tigray Province. Paras 2-4 were taken verbatim from Tigrayans with the citations stripped out of it.
The section "Rulers of Tigray" was copied verbatim from Tigray Province.

There was discussion on the article's talk page that the article was a hoax, and I was unable to verify much content until I realized it was a poor "copy job" from elsewhere, taken out of context and with some of the citations missing or moved around. Not salvageable. Platonk (talk) 03:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Platonk (talk) 03:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Platonk (talk) 03:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. Platonk (talk) 03:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikipedia should not host historical hoaxes.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a comical hoax article, and the creator's other edits and article creations should be investigated. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Oaktree b (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ue3lman (talk) 10:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tigray Region -- The title is a conceivable search term, though Reino is likely to be Portuguese for kingdom. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:14, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POVFORK, WP:COPYWITHIN, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH. To add to Dawit's comment above: User:Thingsomyipisntvisable is also subject to an investigation into a series of copyvios on Commons (where nominator Platonk has also claimed that Thingsomyipisntvisable's two maps of Tigr are 'bunk'); their disruptive behaviour appears persistent and a threat to the project. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:20, 31 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 Barbados Postal Service#Postal codes. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Postal codes in Barbados[edit]

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

This article is an unsourced stub and I cannot really find much on the topic that would make it pass WP:GNG. TartarTorte 03:14, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Barbados-related deletion discussions. TartarTorte 03:14, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment.~~ A merge with List of postal codes in Barbados is an option. Alternatively, the stub can be merged into a now-absent Communications section of the main Barbados article. Postal codes became active in the region in recent years, and sources can be found. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Barbados Postal Service#Postal codes per Reywas92 below. • Gene93k (talk) 04:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:11, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd delete List of postal codes in Barbados too, not sure that type of directory is encyclopedic. Barbados Postal Service is a better redirect target. Reywas92^Talk 14:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Barbados Postal Service#Postal codes, where this can be covered in a reasonable amount of detail without a stand-along page. Hog Farm _Talk 15:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Hog Farm. –dlthewave ☎ 15:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
obvious redirect to Barbados Postal Service#Postal codes per above, also considering that the separate article says less than the main article section. Mangoe (talk) 03:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Barbados Postal Service#Postal codes Gusfriend (talk) 08:47, 1 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 delete. ✗plicit 12:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Canditv[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm not convinced this meets WP:GNG . Gets a few passing mentions for being a sponsor of a cycling team. LibStar (talk) 01:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The appropriate WP:SNG for products like this is WP:NCORP. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:09, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per HighKing. I was unable to find reliable sources to support keeping this page, and the sources already on the page (some of which I could not open) are not enough to pass WP:SIGCOV. Heartmusic678 (talk) 11:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems the "currently" in the article was added back in 2008 *with never having any source), and first keep was because of the "awards" which might not be as fluffy as many in the USA (usually mean taking the reporter to lunch) but still not notable by today's standards. The company is still around, selling software to manager commercial truckers, while this product seems to have quietly gone defunct around seven or eight years ago. W Nowicki (talk) 19:34, 31 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. As stated below by Kinu, this is a straight copy of the article deleted as outcome of the previous deletion discussion, so it unambiguously qualifies for speedy deletion. Also, this discussion appears to have been heading for "delete" anyway. JBW (talk) 21:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

United Airlines Flight 627[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Was PRODED, but the tag was removed. This article fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:PERSISTENCE. The most recent coverage of the incident is from when it actually happened. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't appear to meet Wikipedia:Aircrash as no fatalities, no hull loss and no enduring changes to practices. Nothing seems to have changed from the previous AfD. Alansohn (talk) 03:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Boeing 757 § Accidents and incidents, since there were no injuries sustained in this incident, and no lasting coverage ensued. I don't know if the aircraft being written off is considered a hull loss, but that is apparently what happened. Even so, we should not have an article for every hull loss with no injuries. Note: No one has yet created List of accidents and incidents involving the Boeing 757, similar to other articles in the genre, such as those involving the 737 and the 777. If someone had created and populated it with articles taken from Category:Accidents and incidents involving the Boeing 757, that would have been my first choice for a merge. - StonyBrook (talk) 04:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:55, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing changed since the previous AfD (is it a G4 speedy candidate or is the article really different?). Fram (talk) 08:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and trout the article creator. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4. The content of the article is identical to the deleted version from 2019. (Note: I have tagged it as such but won't delete it myself; as there is a merge !vote above, I think it would be prudent to have another set of administrator eyes take a look at this to make sure I'm not mistaken.) --Kinu ^t/_c 20:41, 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. RL0919 (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Zoobles![edit]

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

Detailed list article of dozens upon dozens of non-notable individual items. Completely fails notability and fully meets what Wikipedia isn't (see WP:NOTDIRECTORY). Just a fan-listing of individual trivia. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, Wikipedia is not Fandom as this is also WP:FANCRUFT. Pahiy (talk) 03:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Toys-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCATALOG, WP:IINFO. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simply WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 09:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Severe storm 28 21:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Already covered at https://zooble.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_Zoobles. Avilich (talk) 23:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The elements of this list are not relevant to Wikipedia. FalconK (talk) 03:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NOT. ––FormalDude talk 15:39, 31 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.