Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 January 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< January 28	January 30 >

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 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 02:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Niels Heinsøe[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 23 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!} 00:23, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:06, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bride of the World[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Tagged for notability since 2014. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:50, 23 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!} 23:19, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete did not meet WP:GNG.--19:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Arguments based on gng do not address NCORP concerns and an article on a brand should be sourced to coverage of rhe brand not individual products to avoid OR. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lowepro[edit]

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

Re-nominating this article 9 years on. Many of the cited sources are merely reviews of products as is typical for manufacturers of goods sold at retail; there are passing mentions of the company here and there, but it lacks the substantial independent third-party coverage in reliable sources that are looked for in WP:NCORP. The page remains heavily weighted toward promotional content and relies for its non-promotional statements mostly on other than reliable sources and press releases. A search for anything that might make it notable, in terms of its impact as a company or any important events it might have played a role in, comes up empty. It's run of the WP:MILL. The previous discussion resulted in no consensus. I suggest it be deleted. FalconK (talk) 08:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 08:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 08:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 08:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:32, 23 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!} 23:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an advertisement. I note that about half the article is a discussion of which model might fit a particular person's needs. That's helpful and appropriate, but for their website, which is where anyone would look for it.`` DGG ( talk ) 07:12, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I removed unsourced content or content sourced to self-published sources from the "Products" section. The section now has:
The Slingshot range is aimed at professional news and sports photographers,[6] providing easy access to cameras for rapid shooting; CNet found the SlingShot 300 AW Camera Bag offered good protection and easy access.[7] The FastPack is a rucksack-style range, which CNet found less refined.[8]
and is sourced to Amateur Photographer and CNET. This is neutral and balanced and is not advertising. Cunard (talk) 08:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Allday, Erin (2001-01-30). "Camera bag maker a picture of health. Sr company leads world in meeting needs of professional photographers". The Press Democrat.
  The article provides 1,056 words about Lowepro. The article notes:
  Just about every serious photographer in the world knows about Lowepro. Lowepro camera bags are sold in more than 60 countries. They have been lugged up Mount Everest and hiked into the Alaskan back country. And most of them came from an unimpressive warehouse on Guerneville Road in Santa Rosa. Lowepro is one of the biggest camera bag dealers in the world. Its parent company is based in Toronto, but since the early '90s, all of the design and distribution work has been done by about 25 employees based at the Lowepro headquarters in Santa Rosa.
  ...
  Lowepro started in 1981 as a division of Lowe Alpine Systems, an outdoor-gear maker in Colorado. That company was started by three brothers who were outdoor enthusiasts.
2. Lee, Marc (2003-09-05). "Get in gear". The Dallas Morning News.
  The article provides 220 words of coverage about Lowepro. The article notes: "Backpackers and nature photographers have relied on Lowepro's versatile and rugged camera-bag systems for 30 years. The packs' hooks, loops and malleable partitions make them adaptable to any trip, and their nearly bulletproof nylon skins and cushioned compartments are both protective and lightweight - perfect for the trail or mountaintop."
3. Dunn, James (2016-03-28). "Petaluma's Lowepro seeks sales boost with drone carrier". North Bay Business Journal. Archived from the original on 2022-01-31. Retrieved 2022-01-31.
  The article notes: "Lowepro was originally part of a company founded in about 1967 by Colorado-based Greg Lowe, whose innovations included internal-frame backpacks. That part of the company became Lowe Alpine, owned by U.K.-based Equip Outdoor Technologies Holdings, which also has the Rab brand of outdoor clothing and sleeping bags, founded by British mountaineer Rab Carrington. Lowepro is owned by DayMen Canada Acquisition ULC, based in Luxembourg, with an office in Toronto. The company's main products were originally designed for professional photographers, but Lowepro is expanding to build packs for drones, students and travelers."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Lowepro to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Response Cunard's grasp of NCORP is worringly deficient despite several editors attempting to assist him in grasping some of the peculiarities of NCORP guidelines. For here, Cunard is ignoring the fact that the topic is a company while the references he's relying on talk about the product. Fails CORPDEPTH. The last reference from the North Bay Business Journal from 2016 is an advertorial for bags to carry drones. Fails ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed the company versus brand topic below. I do not agree that the profile from the North Bay Business Journal is an advertorial, which is defined as "an advertisement in the form of editorial content". It is a profile of the company from a reputable publication. It has a positive tone and includes quotes from people affiliated with the company, but there is no evidence that the profile in the North Bay Business Journal is an advertisement. Cunard (talk) 07:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is a "Journalism advertorial" which is defined as The organization wants to attract media attention to a subject or themselves. There isn't one sentence in that entire article that is "clearly attributable" to a source unrelated to the company. But that said ... I agree with your point below about it being a "brand" and not a "company" ... so I'm not sure if NCORP applies anymore although I don't know for sure. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lowepro participants: Tagremover (talk · contribs), Nick-D (talk · contribs), Colapeninsula (talk · contribs), and Hoary (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 08:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete *Update* I'm leaving the Delete !vote because I think a "brand" falls under NCORP guidelines but I'm not 100% sure. If it doesn't and some other guideline of GNG applies, I'll revisit my !vote. Just to be clear, there's a lot of reviews about their products. Unless those references continue in-depth information on the company, they don't assist in establishing notability of the company. The appropriate guideline for both is NCORP. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. I have been unable to find any references that meet NCORP criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about the brand (the company's goods), not the company. From Lowepro: "Lowepro is a brand of carrying bags". If the article was about the company, it would say "Lowepro is a company that sells carrying bags". There is significant coverage about the brand through the numerous product reviews and through the sources I provided.
From brand, "A brand is a name ... that identifies one seller's good or service as distinct from those of other sellers."
I consider a brand to be about a set of a company's products (so product reviews can be used to establish notability), not about the company itself. If you think otherwise, is there any alternative to deletion per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion to reframing the article to be about the products so that this can be retained? It does not make sense to delete an article about a brand that has received numerous product reviews just because the company itself did not receive significant coverage. The brand is notable, not the company.
Cunard (talk) 07:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Response There's an "Infobox Company" and a "History of the company" section so it looked to me like an article on a company which originally was part of Lowe Alpine (which was acquired by Rab (company) which was in turn acquired by "Equip Outdoor Technologies"). But I understand your point - despite the structure of the article, there doesn't appear to be a *company* of this name (correct me if I'm wrong), only a brand name. At some point the "Lowepro" brand was acquired by another company and is now owned by Vitec Group (which owns a ton of brands and has no wikipedia article). I'm not sure which guideline applies for a brand .... perhaps NCORP should still apply? HighKing⁺⁺ 13:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your analysis that there is no company by the name of Lowepro, only a brand name. I consider a brand to be a product or perhaps more accurately, a set of products. I think the relevant guideline to apply for a brand is still NCORP, specifically Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Products and services. The brand Lowepro has received significant coverage through numerous product reviews so it passes NCORP. Cunard (talk) 06:18, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It still isn't straight forward though. The problem with that approach though is that there aren't any reviews on the "brand" per se, only individual reviews for individual products. So we run the risk of WP:OR in trying to create a "brand" topic. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:09, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm happy to keep this per WP:GNG, I feel Cunard has successfully demonstrated notability. The problems identified by the initial delete vote appear to have been resolved. NemesisAT (talk) 12:40, 6 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 03:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Satanakozel[edit]

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

This is understandably a russian group and there may not be many references in english; its debut album has already been deleted. Sikonmina (talk) 09:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:31, 23 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!} 23:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did a google search and couldn't find anything reliable with either the English or Russian names; only the usual databases, streaming and retail sites, youtube and download sites came up. If I have found some reviews, they are featured on blogs, and even those are rare. Since I am Hungarian I got some results about them playing a concert with other bands, a review in Hungarian about said concert, and a Hungarian-language biography on a site anyone can edit. Even though I don't speak Russian I could tell the sites are not reliable based on the URLs. No wonder they don't have an article on ruwiki. If this goes, the remaining two albums (Sun of the Dead, The North) should go as well. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:54, 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 Macedonian Americans#Media. ✗plicit 02:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Makedonski Glas[edit]

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

No evidence that this former newspaper meets Wikipedia:Notability (periodicals) GoingBatty (talk) 05:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. GoingBatty (talk) 05:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. GoingBatty (talk) 05:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Macedonia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 01:51, 23 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!} 23:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Macedonian Americans#Media, which I have done, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. I searched for sources and could not find significant coverage about this American newspaper. I could find only this one-sentence mention in the 2013 book Immigrants in American History: Arrival, Adaptation, and Integration: "In November 2004, the biweekly Makedonski Glas (Macedonian Voice) began publication in Garfield, New Jersey." A merge allows the newspaper to be covered on Wikipedia in the "Media" section of the article about Macedonian Americans. Cunard (talk) 10:12, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per above opinion. Jingiby (talk) 11:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect reference added January 16.Djflem (talk) 08:47, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding and adding that source, Djflem (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 12:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good Wikipedia:ATD. Djflem (talk) 13:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Macedonian Americans#Media as per WP:ATD. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:12, 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 keep. ✗plicit 00:08, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Huang Wei (businessman)[edit]

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

I couldn't find sources to show that they pass WP:GNG as the current source does not show sufficient notability by itself. A WP:BEFORE search was hampered by results for the live-streamer Viya (influencer) who has the same birth name so it's quite possible that I've missed non-English sources. Suonii180 (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:11, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:11, 22 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!} 22:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. 孙良珠 (2010). 温州人赚大钱成大事的16条商规 [16 Business Rules for People in Wenzhou to Earn Good Money and Achieve Success] (in Chinese). Wuhan: Huazhong University of Science and Technology Press [zh]. ISBN 978-7-5609-6083-8. Retrieved 2022-01-29.
  The book notes from Google Translate: "Huang Wei was born in 1959 and graduated from Wenzhou Normal University in his early years. A classmate who was one level lower than him had the impression of Huang Wei: "Introverted, I liked Go when I was in school, and I didn't spend much energy on reading, I just took it easy." Huang Wei was an undergraduate student at the Zhejiang Provincial Party School. After graduating, he went to teach at the Wenzhou Municipal Party School, and went to sea after a short teaching time."
2. 林夏淅 (2020-06-09). 刘肖迎 (ed.). "温州神秘商人黄伟：曾开眼镜店，从2万起家，今拥250亿" [Wenzhou mysterious businessman Huang Wei: He once opened an optical shop, started from 20,000, and now has 25 billion] (in Chinese). East Money Information. Archived from the original on 2022-01-29. Retrieved 2022-01-29.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "After more than 20 years of weaving, Wenzhou businessman Huang Wei started from an optical shop and went all the way to become a capital tycoon with a net worth of 25 billion yuan and the actual control of Xinhu Zhongbao and Ha Gaoke. ... Huang Wei was born in Wenzhou in 1959. After graduating from university, he held positions in Ruian No. 1 Middle School and Wenzhou Municipal Party School. In the 1980s, he chose to go to Shanghai to do business. Regarding his first pot of gold, the existing version is that after Huang Wei earned 20,000 yuan by selling glasses, he completed the original capital accumulation of about 8 million yuan in 1992 with more than 800 stock subscription certificates in his hand."
3. "黄伟详细资料" [Huang Wei more details] (in Chinese). Phoenix Television. Archived from the original on 2022-01-29. Retrieved 2022-01-29.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "Huang Wei, born on September 30, 1959, graduated from Wenzhou Teachers College and worked as a teacher in Ruian Chengguan No.1 Middle School in Wenzhou. In the early 1990s, Huang Wei, with the courage of Wenzhou people, rented several counters in Hangzhou International Building to sell glasses, and made his first pot of gold. In 1994, he served as the chairman of Zhejiang Xinhu Group Co., Ltd. He is currently the chairman of Zhejiang Xinhu (Holdings) Group and holds 68.2% of Xinhu Holdings."
4. 张晓晖 (2020-08-22). ""新湖系"实控人黄伟资产大腾挪？哈高科27亿现金收购大智慧15%股权背后" [The assets of Huang Wei, the actual controller of the "Xinhu system", have been greatly changed? Behind Hargatech's 2.7 billion cash acquisition of 15% stake in Great Wisdom]. The Economic Observer (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-01-29. Retrieved 2022-01-29.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "Huang Wei, born in 1959, is the chairman of Zhejiang Xinhu Holdings Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Xinhu Holdings"). In March 2020, Huang Wei ranked No. 1 in the "2020 Hurun Global Real Estate Rich List" 68 bit. ... Around 1991, Huang Wei used the more than 20,000 yuan earned from opening an optical shop to buy more than 800 subscription certificates in Shanghai. This investment brought more than 8 million yuan of original capital accumulation for Huang Wei."
5. "新湖集团董事长黄伟简历" [Resume of Huang Wei, Chairman of Xinhu Group] (in Chinese). Sina Corporation. 2009-10-13. Archived from the original on 2022-01-29. Retrieved 2022-01-29.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "With a fortune of several million, Huang Wei began to roam the primary market of the stock market. He can be seen wherever new shares are issued. Subsequently, with strong financial strength, Huang Wei made enough money on the stage of treasury bond futures and commodity futures."
6. "327国债事件后：五位大佬的命运流转(图)" [After the 327 National Debt Incident: The Fate of Five Big Shots (Photos)]. 21st Century Business Herald (in Chinese). 2013-09-06. Archived from the original on 2022-01-29. Retrieved 2022-01-29 – via Sina Corporation.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "According to the 2007 Hurun Financial Rich List, Huang Wei is tied for 13th place with Wei Dong with an asset of 3 billion. In the 2013 Forbes Chinese Rich List, Huang Wei ranked 26th with a net worth of 2.6 billion US dollars, and ranked 554th among the world's richest people, surpassing Chen Jinxia, who inherited Wei Dongyong's gold heritage."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Huang Wei (simplified Chinese: 黄伟; traditional Chinese: 黃偉) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - After reviewing the sources mentioned above I am satisfied that notability requirements are met as they constitute significant coverage. Such-change47 (talk) 02:06, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Agree that notability requirements have been met. — Ret.Prof (talk) 18:36, 5 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 02:56, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Bechdel[edit]

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

Just a random band member. Not enough to demonstrate notability FMSky (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:14, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:14, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Bechdel has a 30 plus year career in notable bands and has worked with notable artists worldwide. He is also credited on albums and singles that have charted and were nominated for Grammy awards. John Bechdel has approved and authorized his bio and discography personally on his wiki page. He is very much alive and a touring/working musician. I am editing on his behalf. Rage4order (talk) 05:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a WP:COI notice on your talk page. Please read it carefully and follow the instructions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mild Delete He's been associated with the music industry for 30 years, but the article has no reliable sources about him/his accomplishments. This one's going to take a bit of digging to make it past the notability bar. I find one interview in the Orlando Sentinel in GNews and several in what appear to be metal band specialized publications. No desire to dig for them, but they might just exist. As it sits now, the article isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 02:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bobherry Talk Edits 01:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bobherry Talk Edits 01:53, 23 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!} 22:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mostly a hired hand for, granted, some well known outfits. One album on what appears to be a vanity label that did not chart. Does not pass WP:MUSICBIO criteria. Karst (talk) 23:49, 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!} 06:04, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beeni[edit]

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

No reliable, secondary sources covering this subject in detail have been provided, and a search for scholarly sources on the subject turns up nothing. The article, as it stands, falls into the category of WP:JUNK, neither defining the sport it professes to be about, how it might be different from other forms of wrestling, where the name comes from, or anything of that ilk. The only sources are highly specific news reports of a supposed world champion-defining match in the North of England that equally do not describe the sport in any great detail. This is not great from a WP:NOTNEWS perspective, and, arguably, the actual discussion of the support in these sources is also quite trivial, as they are focused on the matches and the wrestlers more than the sport itself. Only the Manchester Evening New link appears to have more than a few lines on the sport itself. Upon writing this, there was also no inline citation whatsoever supporting any of the claims. Even if this a fringe sport, one would would expect some slightly better sourcing that this to support it; for the moment, it is not convincingly notable from the perspective of Wikipedia's standards. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This sport isn't an international one as described in the article. Rather, it is a traditional form of arm wrestling played by some Kashmiri tribes, and the Pakistani diaspora in England. The game is mentioned in the following journal: https://www.academia.edu/36775183/THE_INTERNATIONAL_JOURNAL_OF_HUMANITIES_and_SOCIAL_STUDIES_Socio_Economic_and_Educational_Status_of_Tribal_Gujjar_and_Bakarwal_of_Jammu_and_Kashmir_An_Overview The article can be improved by adding relevant citations and content. Toofllab (talk) 07:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:53, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Iflaq I hope you can help with this? ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 20:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last try.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As a Kashmiri myself and being an expert in my region's things, I had never heard of this name or game. It is probably a hoax. Reliability is far away. I haven't even heard of this name. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 14:48, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 21:29, 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. I'm closing this early per WP:SNOW as there's really no chance that this could survive deletion. It's probably the only article created by an editor (who I just blocked as WP:NOTHERE) who also created some hoax pages. At best his edits have been to promote himself. At worst they were pages about non-notable media with hoax claims about being released through major production companies. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Lyosacks Movie[edit]

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

No evidence whatever of notability. No sources have been provided apart from a link (now removed) to the "official website", which is a wiki page on Fandom, and an IMDb entry, which gives no information at all apart from a brief plot summary (no credits, no mention of what studio made the film, etc etc). My searches for sources failed to turn up any coverage in any reliable source. JBW (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: After a while perusing the depths of google and consulting the Oracle of Delphi, the subject certainly exists. Unfortunately, Existence ≠ Notability. Finding reliable and in-depth sources for the movie was very difficult, and most of the sites were fanwikis, user-submitted, or simple 2 sentence synopses. It fails WP:GNG, WP:NMOVIE. WhoAteMyButter (📨_talk│📝^contribs) 02:16, 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 speedy keep. (non-admin closure) (non-admin closure) — DaxServer (talk · contribs) 19:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oneindia[edit]

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

~~Appears to fail WP:NCORP - of the four sources, only The Times Of India appears to be worth for establishing notability, and one < three. casualdejekyll 22:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)~~ Withdrawn- Djm-leighpark has convinced me that Oneindia is a keep casualdejekyll 19:04, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:06, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Times of India is here giving coverage of a routine business action, even. Nothing notable here, this exists as covert marketing. FalconK (talk) 00:47, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: At this point on a quick scan no evidence a BEFORE was carried out. In general there is always a concern when established news outlets are targeted for deletion like this, be they good, bad, useless, biased etc. Appears to fail NCORP is too weak to nominate and reasonably clear the books links was not booked at I am finding 10.1007/978-3-030-44563-8 P.170 on it which looks RS. Indufficient time to dig further currently. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Currently waiting for download so I can read that and see if it's RS. If I find that it is, I'll probably withdraw nom - however, just noting that the last AfD was made by a sockpuppet, but if it wasn't it looked like consensus was to delete. Of course, that was last year and things can change over time. casualdejekyll 18:59, 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. ✗plicit 00:08, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

REFER – Responsible Energy for European Regions[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage. Fails WP:ORG. SL93 (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 21:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 21:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ORG. No evidence of significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 00:41, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Gusfriend (talk) 07:25, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A small set of sources when the blog was launched, none meeting WP:ORGDEPTH. Femke (talk) 20:13, 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 02:58, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hamdard (NGO) Ramban[edit]

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

There are several issues with this article. 1. No significant coverage about the organization itself in any of the sources, most are passing mentions. 2. Puffery and attempts at promotion with too many images. Statements across the article are repetitive in nature. 3. No COI declared by article creator, have also removed the tag added to article. Removed PROD without fixing the issues. Previous attempts at creating the article has been speedy deleted per user/talk page. MT Train^Talk 14:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons I PRODded the article - I cannot see that this organisation meets our notability criteria. All the coverage I can find appears to be passing mentions or other insignificant coverage. firefly ( t · c ) 17:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I see no significant coverage of the topic in sources, so I'll support deletion due to lack on notability (not meeting WP:GNG). Moreover, the concerns regarding COI and NPOV do exist. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:43, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Kavyansh Happy editing--IAm Chaos 22:21, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:02, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Asare[edit]

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

BLP of a Ghanaian blogger and influencer, previously speedy deleted under A7 and G11, recreated now but still lacking in anything suggesting notability. Sourced to promotional pieces of churnalism. Mccapra (talk) 08:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edward is a notable person in Ghana and well recognized and respected for his work and impact.Ruby D-Brown (talk) 14:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: All references provided tells a good story about him lets keep. Jwale2 (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not promotional Wikipedia is built on references, and at least three of such is not "sourced to promotional pieces of churnalism" as you claim. The article is worth keeping. Uprising Man (talk)
Keep: The article on Edward Asare entails credible references. Moreover, he is well known for his significant impact in the blogging industry. This article should be kept. Kaffzz (talk) 16:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:The Article has credible references and there is nothing that suggests it is not written in a neutral point of view, let's keep it.Anani A. George (talk) 17:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Source 1 tells us the subject has a verified account on twitter, but that certainly doesn’t make him notable. The story is clearly based on his own publicity.

Source 2 has a disclaimer saying it carries syndicated content and user-generated content, which this obviously is.

Source 3 is about an awards win, also based on a press release, full of ludicrous bloated language.

Source 4 won’t load for me but from the headlines it’s the announcement of the 50 top bloggers in Ghana. What this contributes to notability I can’t say.

Source 5 is an interview with the subject.

Source 6 also looks like it’s based on his own pr.

Source 7 is an interview with the subject.

Source 8 is a copy of the same press release in source 3.

Source 9 appears to be sourced to the same press release as source 4.

There isn’t a single piece of reliable in depth coverage by a third party here. It’s all promotional or self-promotional nonsense, churnalism of the worst sort. Mccapra (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:The article looks good and has references that are independent of the subject. xibitgh (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article follows all the guidelines including notability and verifiable references. pambelle12 (talk) 10:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Good RS here. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment above I went through each source and showed how it was not reliable or not independent. For example source three says “The award was to honour and recognize his exploits as a refined Digital Marketer with vast experience and exposure.” Source 8 says exactly the same thing. Did two independent journalists coincidentally come up with the identical phrase? Is this the kind of language reliable sources use, or is it the kind of thing self-promoters say in their own press releases? Mccapra (talk) 08:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I feel that, despite all the keep !votes, the issue with the credibility of sources still remains. I'd like to see some more critical input here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 18:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article pass WP:GNG and the listed references are based on many famous and reliable websites in Ghana. Charmk (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the reasons of those who want to keep this article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 21:51, 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. Star Mississippi 02:39, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prarthi Dholakia[edit]

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

Actress has no significant roles in any notable films. Fails WP:NACTOR as well as WP:GNG. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 16:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 16:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 16:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will oppose the nomination of deletion as the page is of person who works in gujarati tv serial space and in acting space and is quite famous for those works. Currently she is working as actress in ShemarooMe Originals - Goti Soda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chintak23 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Not notable. Delete per nom. Coderzombie (talk) 13:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Non Notable

IndaneLove (talk) 18:50, 5 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 00:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PEI Journal[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced article, and the journal appears promotional and non-notable. A WP:BEFORE search found no independent sources. Wgullyn (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Wgullyn (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Wgullyn (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd say it should be merged into Petroleum Equipment Institute except that doesn't exist. This isn't an engineering journal, it's a thin glossy industry publication consisting mainly of promotional material. Not notable under any criteria. FalconK (talk) 00:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trade association magazine with no indication of notability and nothing but primary source external links in the article. --RL0919 (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Trade association magazine lacks notability.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:51, 5 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 00:13, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Storm FM[edit]

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

Unreferenced since 2006, no sigcov found in my WP:BEFORE, appears to be potential COI/Promo article given the history of the article creator. FOARP (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:20, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:20, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Radio stations do not get automatic inclusion freebies just because an unsourced article asserts that they exist: the notability test vests in the quality and depth of the reliable sources that can be shown to demonstrate that the topic passes WP:BCAST, not just in the assertion of existence per se, but there are no sources here. And even the topic's self-published external link is a Blogspot blog that hasn't been posted to since 2018 — but real commercial radio stations simply don't rely exclusively on Blogspot as their only web presence, opening up the definite possibility that this was either a one-man internet radio stream or a completely fake radio station that only ever existed in the blogger's imagination. Bearcat (talk) 14:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above lacks reliable sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:53, 5 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:51, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yousuf Babu[edit]

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

Fails the revised WP:NCRIC notability guidelines. All his matches were in the ICC Trophy, few sources and coverage is WP:NOTSTATS or routine. StickyWicket (talk) 14:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 14:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 14:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 14:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-would this reference change things? 1, Yousuf Babu: A Bangladeshi cricketing great from its pre-Test days.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 15:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There was a previous discussion on this person at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yousuf Rahman. My view still stands that there is just enough significant coverage for this to be kept. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Even if the Hasan Babli ref is SIGCOV (can anyone attest to this?), he still fails NSPORT for not receiving SIGCOV in multiple sources, since a stats database and the sentence Opener Yusuf Babu scores 115 against Papua New Guinea in the 3rd place-deciding match of the ICC trophy, 1982 are clearly trivial mentions that do not contribute to notability. JoelleJay (talk) 05:42, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Change to neutral, per the new source showing SIGCOV. The last new source given is a blog, so does not count, and the two others are not significant. But the TBS News source works. We just need a second piece of SIGCOV now. JoelleJay (talk) 19:18, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG per 1, 2, 3, 4. Interestingly enough he has a pharmacy in Long Island now.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 11:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the first and last sources shared by Vinegarymass911 above establish notability. NemesisAT (talk) 12:41, 6 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 Winterville (band)#Discography. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2022)} 23:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shotgun Smile[edit]

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

No independent sources, a WP:BEFORE check shows there are no articles about this single. Currently the only source is the band's old website, which is now a dead link. Wgullyn (talk) 14:56, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Wgullyn (talk) 14:56, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Winterville (band)#Discography, I could find no secondary sources on this single from a search. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Winterville (band)#Discography. Fails WP:NSONG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Winterville (band)#Discography.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:53, 5 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 2022 in Canadian soccer. ✗plicit 00:16, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 in Canadian football[edit]

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

Article already exists in a more fleshed-out form at 2022 in Canadian soccer. Also proper term per LANGVAR for Canada is soccer. RedPatch (talk) 14:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. RedPatch (talk) 14:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2022 in Canadian soccer and add hatnote about redirect linking to an appropriate gridiron football page (most likely 2022 CFL season). It would probably be useful to have redirects from YYYY in Canadian football to YYYY in Canadian soccer for all years YYYY. Mind matrix 15:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirct - I'm not sure why this is at AFD, it's pretty obvious. Nfitz (talk) 23:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 10:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect A no-brainer. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 16:58, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2022 in Canadian soccer.... this seems like a snowstorm. Spf121188 (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Much like Canadian qualifying for 2022! :) Nfitz (talk) 23:10, 5 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. RL0919 (talk) 19:08, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Asimov's Chronology of the World[edit]

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

Non-notable Asimov production; like the shorter version, there is no evidence or assertion of notability. Orange Mike | Talk 14:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep mis-DELSORT'ed, because while Asimov is best known as a Sci Fi writer, this is a work of nonfiction. Review at "Ferrell K. Read any good science books lately? Omni. 1992;14(7):11" is paywalled, but the relevant paragraph is "Some scientists make fine historians. Certainly that's true of Isaac Asimov, but than Asimov has proved himself capable of handling virtually any literary challenge he sets himself--and he's set himself plenty of challenges. Now he's taken on the entire history of the world in Asimov's Chronology of the World (Harper-Collins). Asimov's approach is that of the chronologer, the maker of time lines. He weaves disparate strands of world history together all but effortlessly, showing the relationship of science and technology to the progress of civilization, the rise and fall of individual nations. His time line is enormous, beginning at the Big Bang. A shrewd interpreter as well as storyteller, Asimov cuts off his time line in 1945, at the moment when science delivered the destructive power of the atom into human hands. That moment, he argues, changed the nature of history forever." Also cited in a conference paper [1] and a Journal of Futures Studies article [2]. Meets GNG, even for a relatively old dead tree book. Jclemens (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Aside from the coverage already mentioned by Jclemens, there is also a review on Kirkus for the abridged The March of the Millennia version as well, here. If that article is merged into this one, which it really should be, then we have enough coverage to pass the WP:GNG. On top of this coverage, I'd almost be willing to say it could be argued to qualify as notable under point #5 of WP:NBOOK as well. Rorshacma (talk) 22:43, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are dozens of Asimov books which have more owners on LibraryThing or Goodreads, and they don’t all have (or need) Wikipedia articles. Nwhyte (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources discussed here appear to establish notability. The lack of articles for other books is not valid reason to delete this one. A merge discussion can happen after. NemesisAT (talk) 10:43, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the existing notice about sources at the top of the page. Gusfriend (talk) 07:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with The March of the Millennia. Arguably, when we combine souces for those two editions, some borderline notability can be shown. But two separate entries are not needed. For the record, I found a passing but non-trivial mention here: [3]. There is a one-sentence review in [4]. Few other books mention it passing as a "fun" or "interesting" read, ex. [5] seems to call it "remarkable". This book had some impact, and I wonder if it got reviews in poorly digitized press from the early Internet era? Did anyone check newspaper coverage? Ping User:Cunard. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:57, 5 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 Asimov's Chronology of the World per discussion in both this AfD and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asimov's Chronology of the World. RL0919 (talk) 19:09, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The March of the Millennia[edit]

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

Non-notable, indeed downright obscure short version of a non-notable Asimov book. Not all of his output is notable. Orange Mike | Talk 14:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Asimov's Chronology of the World. That (also AFD'ed) book is clearly more notable than this abridgement, based on my Google Scholar search. Even if this book were notable, no particular need to have two articles on these separate titles that cover the same topic. Jclemens (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Asimov's Chronology of the World per Jclemens. As I mentioned in the current AFD for that book, I found one review on Kirkus for this abridged book here, which can be merged into the parent article for Asimov's Chronology of the World to make one decent article. Rorshacma (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested. I do not know the longer work, and so am not voting on that. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:47, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above and my more substantial comment in the other AfD. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:58, 5 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. RL0919 (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Malamatinas[edit]

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

Non-notable businessman. I'm unable to find coverage which demonstrates that WP:BIO is met. SmartSE (talk) 11:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only the expected references in the media, or listings, because of his position in some companies. (I also searched his name in Greek, Ντένης Μαλαματίνας.) ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 14:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find in-depth articles about him. MartinWilder (talk) 01:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We should try to dig in more information as the age of the person signifies that there might be many sources not available online. It might have been published before the internet era. Secondly his presence in 'The Guardian' and 'Wall Street Journal' shows that he holds notability as per Wikipedia WP:BASIC. His contribution to the field of business is remarkable. We should contribute to improve the scale of the page for c Class.Social Megatron (talk) 11:28, 13 January 2022 (UTC)— Socialmegatron (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete No evidence of any SIGCOV from reliable and independent sources or claim of notability in the article. Brayan ocaner (talk) 23:28, 13 January 2022 (UTC)e[reply]
Keep. CEO of an extremely significant company. This should lead to the liklihood that it will be possible to find adequate sources. DGG ( talk ) 02:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @DGG: I'm surprised to see you use WP:MUSTBESOURCES. Are there any sources? SmartSE (talk) 09:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I said likelihood, not certainty. But certainly there will eventually be , as the nyt will give hmi an editorial obit when he dies,, if WP survives long enough to use it.``

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:57, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for the reasons of those who want to keep this article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 03:46, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A quick search on newspapers.com shows sources which provide WP:SIGCOV. (Ex. [6] [7]) Very likely more exist. Curbon7 (talk) 04:13, 5 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!} 06:01, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Valsa Nair Singh[edit]

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

Wikipedia should never be used as a resume hosting site a.k.a. WP:NOTCV. This is a promotional page of the entity WP:PROMO with over citations WP:CITEKILL. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 02:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 02:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 02:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD; ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 03:15, 14 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) 04:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Refbombed BLP about a civil servant. Not a GNG pass IMV as the sources are either puff pieces or associated with the subject. Mccapra (talk) 04:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article is written as though the subject is the head of a government department, but Aaditya Thackeray is the Minister for Culture and Tourism, meaning that the article subject's designations as "Principal Secretary" in this area are genuinely secretarial. BD2412 T 18:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Glucken123 (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough references to passes WP:GNG, Though i have fixed Refbomb but the tone still looks like an advertisement. DMySon (talk) 06:21, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many reliable references were added last time by me, Clearly passes WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. I would also like to ping GreenC who previously rejected PROD. Inspect61 (talk) 14:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not apparent. This is just a civil servant like many others doing her job. The article is written like a LinkedIn page; Wikipedia articles are not for self-promotion. Indian publications are generally not reliable sources for biographies; see Paid news in India. It is not apparent from the article why her job or anything she did are of particular importance. Sandstein 07:02, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 12:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Indeed no sigcov in Marathi or Hindi, as far as I could see. Largely mentioned in announcements by the government. Java Hurricane 07:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nearly all sources are routine news articles. Femina (ref#9) looked GNG worthy but its tagged as advertorial/promotional feature. -- Ab207 (talk) 20:07, 4 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 Sun Hung Kai Properties#Construction and project management. ✗plicit 12:56, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sanfield (Management) Limited[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Recreation of the deleted article. With citation either primary source or just routine mention of the company. So, seems quite clear cut fails WP:NCORP. Any content for this subsidiary can always be placed in Sun Hung Kai Properties as the company is the in-house project manager of SHK . The "notable" project of Sanfield are in fact SHK project. Matthew hk (talk) 11:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Matthew hk (talk) 11:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:40, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Sun Hung Kai Properties#Construction and project management, the parent company, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. The subsection already notes, "The subsidiary of SHKP, Sanfield (Management) Limited is the major construction project management company for the corporation's real estate development." Cunard (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sun Hung Kai Properties#Construction and project management, as above. This is a promotional article and it's not clear that this subsidiary is independently notable. FalconK (talk) 00:52, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Cunard. 124.217.188.23 (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Sun Hung Kai Properties#Construction and project management as per WP:ATD above. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:54, 4 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 per WP:SNOW, and also speedy delete per WP:G5. If someone who is not a banned editor would like to create an article on this person, they will need to start from scratch and demonstrate with reliable sources that this person meets the general notability guideline. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:36, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Olga Fleming (Entrepreneur)[edit]

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

This is some sort of COI/Paid article (throwaway account with just enough edits to launch article into mainspace) with the flimsiest references, only one of which seems to be about the subject). It's riddled with weasel PR; subject is, in essence, a finsec Mother Theresa. But mainly, there's no evidence that the subject is notable, and it's thoroughly objectionable to see wikipedia co-opted for this sort of PR bullshit. Tagishsimon (talk) 10:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A published writer, seems sufficiently referenced. Seasider53 (talk) 11:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Seasider53: The books looks to be self-published. Inside it is no mention of any publishing company....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:00, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notability for a writer is not established by using Google Books to source the fact that the books exist, it's established by using media coverage about the books to source the fact that they've been externally validated as significant (award wins, critical attention from professional literary critics, etc.) Bearcat (talk) 15:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources are not reliable, and the article is just spam. MarioGom (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources found. Pure PR "With her successful mentoring of hundreds of companies to enter international markets and raise funds, Fleming is an entrepreneur and investor, lawyer, mentor, and speaker. Today, Fleming is a public speaker, also the Executive Producer of the European Business and Investment Summit." ugh. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:06, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is written like an advertisement, not like a properly neutral and objective encyclopedia article, and it's referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability, with absolutely no evidence of WP:GNG-worthy media coverage in independent and reliable sources being shown at all. Bearcat (talk) 15:26, 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 Replace with Jon Hubbard (American politician). Sandstein 08:39, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Hubbard[edit]

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

I created this DAB in 2012 (the first content page I created, I think!) after moving the previous subject of the page to Jon Hubbard (British politician). Initially it just DAB'd him and Jon Hubbard (American politician); Boleyn subsequently added Jonathan Hatch Hubbard, and a few months later she successfully PRODded the British politician's article, leaving the page with just these two.

In other words, this is a series of reasonable edits that has left us with a DAB that I don't think I would have created for just these two. While Jon is sometimes a nickname for Jonathan, I don't see any evidence that Jonathan Hatch Hubbard went by it. So the primary topic for "Jon Hubbard" would seem to be the American politician. I think the better approach here would be to delete the dab, move the American politician's article to this title, and hatnote his article to Jonathan Hatch Hubbard and John Hubbard (disambiguation). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 07:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC) c/e broken links 12:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 07:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 07:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the nearly identical John Hubbard. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 08:42, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move Jon Hubbard (American politician) to Jon Hubbard with perhaps a hatnote pointing to John Hubbard. No indication that the Jonathan was ever called "Jon". PamD 12:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move Jon Hubbard (American politician) to Jon Hubbard with a hatnote pointing to John Hubbard.Gusfriend (talk) 07:27, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move Jon Hubbard (American politician) to Jon Hubbard with a hatnote pointing to John Hubbard (disambiguation).—Bagumba (talk) 08:48, 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 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 02:59, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Escuadrón[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES; I found no RS reviews in a WP:BEFORE and no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 14:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:48, 22 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!} 06:32, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tonny Fisker[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBADMINTON and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:54, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:54, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:47, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greenland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:47, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:52, 22 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!} 06:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per nomination. The subject does neither meet WP:NBADMINTON, nor WP:GNG. As for the sources available in the article, I'm afraid I cannot confirm if all they are reliable enough, though various sources lack to provide a significant coverage of the subject:

[8] — has lengthy quotes from Fisker, none of which helped me in determining of he is notable.

[9] — passing mention, I guess.

[10] — I can't access it

[11] — Page number not mentioned. Upon searching, it appears to be 17. Passing mention that he won bronze medal. Also, a primary source.

[12] — this appears to be a source giving significant coverage, but it in Sermitsiaq (newspaper), a regional newspaper. I doubt if it contributed towards GNG.

[13] — passing mention

[14] — foreign source, so I cannot access the content to accurately judge the content. Though, it being from Kalaallit Nunaata Radioa makes it bit reliable, I think.

[15] — I see not mention of the subject at all.

[16] — passing mention.

Apart from these, I wan't able to find many other sources. So, I think that article should be deleted. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:00, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bellinda Myrick[edit]

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

Non notable singer/actress who fails the notability guidelines. I found only a few sources that mention her including 1, 2 and 3 Sahaib3005 (talk) 09:25, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Sahaib3005 (talk) 09:32, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sahaib3005 (talk) 09:32, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 January 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:35, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:09, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:09, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:51, 22 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!} 06:31, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems to have several roles during her career, but no explanation as to what they are. Leaning delete. Oaktree b (talk) 20:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Reading the talk page shows a strong suggestion this article would not meet notability guidelines in 2008. Notability is not inherited. Does not meet WP:NBEAUTY based on a state–level win. Does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:NSINGER, appears to have been a stage actress or musical performer on touring productions of/with others, but never as a headliner. Unfortunately not much here to meet GNG.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:40, 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 due to lack of significant coverage to support notability. The prospect of a redirect did not receive support to create an alternative consensus. RL0919 (talk) 06:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Moralis[edit]

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

The subject lacks WP:SIGCOV in multiple, reliable and independent sources and thus fails WP:GNG. The subject also fails WP:NOLYMPICS in that he did not win a medal. In this case, Moralis not only didn't medal -- he actually did not even finish the event. See Athletics at the 1932 Summer Olympics – Men's 50 kilometres walk. Cbl62 (talk) 13:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Clearly doesn't pass WP:GNG. Spf121188 (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is there a website that contains old Greek newspaper archives? BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Based on his being named John and representing the club "Ellinoamerikanos AS, New York", he had probably migrated to the US at the time. As a result, the coverage in Greek could be limited. Geschichte (talk) 21:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no significant coverage. The fact that some Olympic competititors did not even finish their events is one of the reasons why the old practice of assuming every Olympic competitor was default notable was just downright ludicrous.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
'Redirect to Athletics at the 1932 Summer Olympics – Men's 50 kilometres walk per WP:ATD. All the information can be found there. In the future, I would encourage editors to simply be bold and redirect these pages where an obvious target exists and notability is clearly not met rather than create a bunch of AfDs. Smartyllama (talk) 19:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have found this NYT article titled MORALIS CAPTURES CENTRAL PARK WALK; Scores in 6 -Mile handicap and this article from the Frederick News-Post. GPL93 (talk) 21:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GPL93: Do you think those qualify as SIGCOV? Cbl62 (talk) 21:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cbl62: I think probably the NYT is, the other I'm not as sure about given its a quick writeup of him visiting Frederick, MD. I should also note that "John" appears to have been his Americanized name and his actual name was Ioannis so there might be more referencing under that name. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. SIGCOV in the NYT would be impressive. Was it just about the results of a local race in NYC or more broadly about him? Cbl62 (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per sources presented later in the discussion, and the discussion about sources that has ensued.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the NYT piece. It is a brief report on results of a six-mile walk around Central Park hosted by Moralis's athletic club. There is nothing biographical about Moralis. Doesn't rise to the level of SIGCOV. As for redirecting to Athletics at the 1932 Summer Olympics – Men's 50 kilometres walk, I don't think that's warranted given that Moralis did not even finish the race. Cbl62 (talk) 19:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Some people seem to think that every mention in the New York Times is default a sign that anything named there deserves an article. Especially before 1950, we have to have skepticism that every mention by the New York Times of events and people in the New York City area is the type of reference that automatically insures they are notable enough to be in an encyclopedia. We also have to keep in mind that name dropping is not always the same as significant coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:17, 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 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. All of the Keep voters have been blocked so I'm discounting their votes but giving this a soft delete in case sources appear that allow an improved version of this article to be created. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mridul Kachawa[edit]

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

Looks like promotional page. All the reference are in Hindi and not mentioned any reason of popularity other than a civil servant. ☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 04:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

keep as per nom and also officer of Rajasthan in the Indian Police Service — Preceding unsigned comment added by TishKit (talk • contribs) 04:39, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep as he is a notable government official in Rajasthan.AjmerEditor (talk) 13:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC) — AjmerEditor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
keep2405:201:5C00:E8F8:E597:5DC:1C36:378B (talk) 13:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC)— 2405:201:5C00:E8F8:E597:5DC:1C36:378B (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep, Mridul Kachawa is an IPS officer and He is posted in Rajasthan and has numerous articles on him, He is in Rajasthan so that’s why all references are in Hindi. He is popular for his achievement, He caught 44 dacoits of Chambal by himself. All the references are of renowned and verified sites. How is it promotional kindly explain.Wanderer kanishk (talk) 13:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For an IPS, it is not a big job that his team have caught 44 culprits of low (unknown) profile. Creator of this article is already blocked. ☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Relatively junior officer (superintendent) with no real notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. None of the keep !votes is based in actual policy. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:53, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional states of the United States[edit]

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

The list has few sources and seems to fail WP:LISTN. A large number of the entries are themselves non-notable as well. I usually tolerate plot-significant states in notable works, and sometimes also fictional things from non-works, but like many low-quality lists of fictional elements by type, many entries are mere passing mentions; from works that do not have articles, including books by redlinked authors; or places not even confirmed as US states. A good example of the latter is "North Montana" as a future version of Canada in Meet the Robinsons, which is mentioned as a one-off gag and is never claimed to be part of the US — all that is said is that it "hasn't been called Canada for years."

Aside from notability concerns, the article has serious problems with its scope. We have everything from purely fictional states (the ostensible topic, and same as Category:Fictional states of the United States); fictionalized versions of real or proposed states, such as works where the proposed State of Deseret became reality; various alternate history or otherwise fictionalized versions of the US, such as scenarios where the American Revolution failed; and breakaway states formed from the US, such as fictionalized versions of the Confederate States of America. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost nothing in the list is bluelinked to an article that is actually relevant, besides various incorrect links. The category could probably be selectively merged or deleted as well for being underpopulated with actual articles. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing LISTN and for not including Confusion. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:52, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of fictional settlements. Unsourced content can be tagged for sourcing and deleted entirely if sources are not forthcoming, but some of these describe what could be called "city-states", and it's not clear that a state can not be a settlement as much as a city. BD2412 T 06:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is almost no sourced content in the article, only a small handful of examples listed are actually blue-linked (and most of those are not even links to actual articles on the supposed subject), and half of the article is on random fictional countries/settlements/etc. that are not "states of the United States". I am honestly not seeing anything that is actually salvageable here. Rorshacma (talk) 07:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It's rather sad that more attention has been paid to sourcing a throwaway gag from one episode of a television series from 2013, one of the few things in the article for which a source is given, than to hyperlinking the state of Ames to the quite real Ames Moot Court Competition. Uncle G (talk)
Delete Don't see a lot of notability in the 'fictional' states. Orientls (talk) 12:45, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Way too much of this is unsourced.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:56, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just a mess of unsourced, unlinked and trivial junk. I think I sense SNOW, folks. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:23, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April Deniz[edit]

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

The subject appears to have received some coverage as a child prodigy and that was spun into an article as an artist. The editor who created the article made one edit - creation of this article. Proded and then deproded because "exhibition at museum passes WP:NARTIST", however there aren't any citations for exhibitions. I cannot find any reliable sources about the artist or her work. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Delete No significant coverage in independent reliable sources, no exhibitions in major venues, no collections, no critical discourse. Vexations (talk) 13:40, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree. Doesn't satisfy WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for painters.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:03, 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. Keep arguments around an SNG pass are less compelling when the evidence is they fail GNG and this is a BLP. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:46, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Dulcie[edit]

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

Exclusively-voice actors don't get much publicity as a rule. Dulcie is not the exception, so WP:GNG is not satisfied. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete when the first reference in an article is literally a link to the subject's resume it is not looking good for notability, and things do not really improve from there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please don't list real people at the "list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep while I don't deny that this is a poor article, I believe this person might meet WP:NACTOR #1. They appear to have significant roles as Smoker in One Piece, Kohji Takao in Neon Genesis Evangelion, Toshizo Hijikata in Golden Kamuy, and Doppo Orochi in Baki the Grappler. Link20XX (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes the subject specific guideline for voice actors, as Link20xx has stated. Dream Focus 14:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Basically no sources to establish notability. Esw01407 (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure the "no sources" part is correct. The roles above do establish notability under the SNG, and if you want sources for those, I have some (secondary sources even) [17] [18] [19] [20]. Link20XX (talk) 23:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think we need to stop applying actor criteria #1 to voice actors directly. Either that or we need to come up with a better more restricted understanding of "significant" in roles. There was a time when voice actors in some productions were not even credited. If people are not credited assuming they get notability from the role makes no sense. The rule was written on the assumption that the nature of the performance makes the person doing the performance in a significant way recognized for doing so. This happens in live action, it happens much less so in voice acting. Even less so when the voice acting is not connected with the original production but a new language production of the work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Reviews of anime usually review the voices of the characters. These aren't simply dubs like in olden times, they actually put far more work into selection voice actors these days since if it doesn't sound right, if the emotions aren't there in the voices, then people won't watch it. https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/people.php?id=53345 list all the roles of the person, with bold for the main characters. Dream Focus 14:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Anime Dub VAs are already significantly under-covered by secondary sources due to a combination of reasons I can only speculate on - but that already disadvantages them significantly over their animation/non-dub peers, and ofc - live action actors. This is a bad article which needs attention, amidst a sea of bad articles which need attention. I know for me, I've kept articles I've wrote to near-indisputably lead/main roles (when qualifying them for NACTOR, before writing them at all) - so I self-enforce a stricter interpretation already - but opening up that discussion would both be complicated, and as mentioned above, writing quality articles about them as things currently are, is difficult enough. As Dream Focus points out, times change - anime (and their dub VAs) have only grown more popular, but most importantly: have gained more significance for their work. Canadianerk (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Canadianerk, we can talk about popularity of voice actors over time at WT:ANIME or WP:ANIME/BIO talk page. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AngusWOOF someone suggested that NACTOR point #1 should not apply to voice actors anymore, I replied. I don't have any confidence in starting one myself. If you want to have it, I'd be willing to participate- otherwise, I've got other articles which need my attention. Canadianerk (talk) 23:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at WP:ANIME/BIO talk page for those interested. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: While I hate articles that are "technically" notable on the basis of a few big roles but have no sources to back up anything, the article does pass WP:NACTOR per Link20xx. — BriefEdits (talk) 00:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to BriefEdits - I speak from experience that it can take hours of work to get one VA article the sources it needs in filmography - and there's so many of them, just within this subcategory of biography articles, that need attention. I don't want to get into habit of jumping into AfDs, and playing wack-a-mole cleanup - but for this one, it shouldn't take too long so I'll give it a shot. Hope it helps - please check back on the article sometime tomorrow (UTC) and let me know if the improvements help. Canadianerk (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Canadianerk, I wouldn't spend the hours confirming credits in cast lists when the subject's general notability is in question. You need to find newspaper sources that discuss the subject in significant coverage. A passing mention, even a one-line review of the subject's portrayal will not help the case. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 06:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AngusWOOF I appreciate an attempt to save time for other editors, but I've already finished my "basic" (how I define it in my own mind, I s'pose) sourcing update to the article. I also acknowledge the attempt to provide your reasoning as to why I shouldn't bother, however, I'll be clear: Your interpretation of policy in this area is one I disagree with in part, and as you might recall - one I challenged multiple times in the second Marissa Lenti AfD. From what I recall, one I didn't get much of an explanation for in response - I was a *very* new editor, so it might not've communicated as clearly as I intended... Regardless, I've seen the original Lenti AfD, I agree with the decision then but not a portion of the reasoning. I know your general position in this area and that you've held them for years, and likely agree this is leaning towards delete on lack of notable roles (I haven't analyzed each role in terms of notability - and don't plan to - so I'm not voting) - I'm not here to debate your opinion, I'm here because the main concern of Oppose votes at time of the above comment, was the quality/sourcing of these roles. My goal here wasn't to just jump in and save the article solo, but enable fellow editors to debate its merits on the basis of NACTOR without being hindered by the lack of reliable sourcing. I don't intend to repeat this kind of time drain in the future regardless of the outcome, and focus on my plans to improve the filmography of dozens of EN VA articles this year. All the best, and enjoy your Monday- Canadianerk (talk) 07:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Canadianerk, if there's a chance the actor may be notable in the future, as with WP:TOOSOON, then I would recommend draftify. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Canadianerk, you can find some examples of voice actor coverage in newspaper articles at WP:ANIME/BIO. Those writeups help a lot more towards WP:GNG AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:54, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware - the only reviews I found were on ANN: one line for Tokyo Ghoul re, one line for golden kamuy and 3 sentences for MHA: Heroes Rising.

They're not what you're looking for, but I didn't personally find any others, on and off ANN. Canadianerk (talk) 21:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hardly any significant roles. Smoker is only recurring for one of the story arcs. Takao in Evangelion is a minor crew character only in the film series. Golden Kamuy he is just lost among the numerous characters. Baki seems to be a main ensemble role, about the only one. No anime conventions that feature him as a major guest of honor. No newspaper articles featuring him. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 06:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- While I admit that I haven't seen One Piece or Evangelion, I was operating under the assumption that any character with a redirect was probably significant in their own right. That being said, I have seen Golden Kamuy, where I would hardly say he is "lost among the characters". While he is listed first in the third subheader of the character list, that is because the series generally revolves around three groups of characters. The character in question is the largest character in one of these three groups, and if the list was divided based on protagonist/antagonist lists, he would be one of the top 3 antagonists. Anyway, it also appears they were cast a role in Akebi's Sailor Uniform, which is listed third on ANN. Admittedly though I haven't seen that series though so I can't speak to its importance. Link20XX (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is mostly sourced to primary sources. Wikipedia is WP:NOTDATABASE and we need independent sources to write an article, and not just compile data into tables. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:49, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Engli[edit]

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

No context and no verifications to reliable sources. Delete per WP:NOTDICT. AKK700 00:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 January 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Made by a prolific mass-creator who literally made tens of thousands of shit-stubs like this. I've taken the liberty of AWB redirecting a number of them, but my goodness what a mess he made before being blocked. This is more of a pond than a lake, with no sign of notability or distinguishing characteristics just like the hundreds of other ponds in its vicinity. Reywas92^Talk 04:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. To be redirected to List of lakes in Estonia--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A search on the name will surface the page with the list of lakes, so I'm not sure that a redirect is needed, but don't object to that. Looking at List of lakes in Estonia it seems that there was hope to create pages for all of the lakes with information about them -- many of the pages, like Engli, are just stubs with the name of the lake. They don't provide any more information that the list itself. This one could be a major clean-up project, but meanwhile, since it has come to AFD, Engli should be removed. Lamona (talk) 04:17, 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 merge to Klavs F. Jensen#Research. ✗plicit 03:14, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CellSqueeze[edit]

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

It looks like this article was started around the time this technology was described (~2013). In the 8 years since, I'm not sure this has caught the attention to meet WP:GNG. If I search Pubmed I only get 1 result and it's by the same group that described the method. Is it WP:TOOSOON for an article on CellSqueeze? Alternatively, we could consider moving the material to a new page on the company they formed, SQZ Biotech, but I'm having a hard time finding sources that aren't regular biotech PR stuff. I don't typically work on WP:NCORP-related articles, perhaps someone else will have a better time finding something? Ajpolino (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Klavs F. Jensen#Research who is the one of the two leaders of the MIT lab where this was developed and the one where this technology is already best documented. I agree that, despite the highly cited PNAS article, this is TOOSOON for a science article since nobody else seems to be using the technique. It's maybe not TOOSOON for the company which was listed last year and had a therapy recently approved by the FDA. We're fairly likely to want to improve coverage of SQZ Biotech so lets go with an ATD that makes reuse of the content easier. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Klavs F. Jensen#Research per Chalst reasons. The information can be used, and this preserved attribution should an article on the company be workshopped. Star Mississippi 01:22, 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 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!} 03:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Čerčan[edit]

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

Unnecessary disambiguation page for Čerčan. There are two items on the list: the first is to a misspelling (Črečan) and the second is to a small village named Přestavlky u Čerčan which is not an exact match. "Čerčan" itself is thus rather implausible as a search term. In fact, people are more plausibly interested in finding the larger municipality Čerčany. Pichpich (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Pichpich (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Pichpich (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed it had existed as a redirect to only one of them since 2010‎, and fixed it to stop circumventing navigation... Moving that navigation to the search engine is okay, though it is confusing how nobody noticed it in 12 years. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, do we know for a fact that the original redirect is a misspelling? It could be a legitimate variation, if undocumented here. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:15, 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. This discussion establishes that this person is frequently quoted in the media, but that this is not enough for a biographical article about her. Sandstein 08:36, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine P. Saxton[edit]

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

Non-notable publicist. Sources present do not establish notability. WP:BEFORE turns up nothing else. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Saxton is certainly widely quoted with statements along the lines of :...says Catherine Saxton, so-and-so's publicist". At the same time she appears multiple times in the 2021 book Gatecrashers (Ben Widdicombe), the New York Times quoted her in conversations about social climbers (2006), Nydia Neubauer (2002), and rent-controlled apartments (1992). There was also broader coverage about her work with the New York Pops [21]. That being said, the previous version of the page was largely copied from imdb, and I have removed that text. DaffodilOcean (talk) 15:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have dug deeping into the *Gatecrashers* book. She is covered on the following pages in the book: 144, 166, 171-174,226, 236-237. More details are in the page DaffodilOcean (talk) 04:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A few more citations - most notable is her work on the Vietnam Veterans parade and 2004 events prior to the elections. Aside from the interview in the Irish Connections, I cannot find any single article solely focused on her. DaffodilOcean (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - There is good RS here, I am just concerned she is only mentioned peripherally in some of it, and there isn't much solid commentary on her establishing her notability. Close but not quite. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately. I, too, find only short quotes (e.g. one line) from her in articles about events or famous people. She doesn't seem to have rated anyone writing about her other than a short obit. She does seem to have had an interesting life and to have worked with many famous folks. It may be normal for her role as an agent to have stayed in the background except to give media quotes/sound bites, but it doesn't meet our notability requirements. Lamona (talk) 04:43, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lamona - are you able to access the Gatecrashers book as that is multiple pages on her? DaffodilOcean (talk) 11:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and basically she is mentioned in one or two sentences on 5 pages. It's stuff like "I met CS at the bar...". Then there are about two pages where he describes her life (I'm looking at the ebook so "pages" is a guess - it's about 2 columns on my tablet and could probably fit on a single printed page.) But she's a very minor character and I don't see enough here to to reach notability. Also, this is a pretty light-weight "tell-all" gossip book, so even if some "facts" are revealed I'm not sure how seriously we can take them. Look, I definitely think she is an interesting person and her life story would be fascinating, but so far I don't see it. Lamona (talk) 18:35, 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.