Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 July 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 30 July 02 >

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 no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 22:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

QuickWin[edit]

QuickWin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Undid a presumptive bad-faith PROD nomination by LTA, per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Software_projects_crosswiki_LTA, but I have reason to believe that this is genuinely non-notable. This purportedly obsolete software has no non-primary sources, and includes a line about an unrelated project with the same name. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:04, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:31, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. In just browsing through google books there are some independent reviews of QuickWin and plenty of coverage in books; although they are highly technical (I didn't even comprehend the reviews entirely). I do think an article could be made by someone with a general knowledge of computer programming that would pass GNG. However, I am not opposed to a soft deletion either unless someone comes along who wants to actually put some work into the article. I don't feel comfortable enough with the topical area to do it myself. Best.4meter4 (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last relist to get at least one second opinion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:36, 1 July 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. Bbb23 (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sausage Capital[edit]

Sausage Capital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Is this concept really such a global phenomenon that it rises to the level of warranting an encyclopedia article? Are "sausage capitals" of so much more significance than, as noted, "cabbage capitals", that this is the appropriate way to document this human impulse? Why not have entire articles documenting lists of localities claiming allegiance to other kinds of food, like poke sallet or ramps, both of which appear to be the subject of multiple competing festivals if not necessary world capitalship? This "phenomenon" doesn't warrant even a redirect in my view; at a minimum, if this is kept, please move it to "Sausage capital" to effectuate appropriate capitalization. Julietdeltalima (talk) 22:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Advertising, and Geography. Julietdeltalima (talk) 22:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I can understand the questioning of the topic, but there's a reason this article has been around for 16 years. I don't know about cabbage capitals, but sausage capitals seem to get sufficient news coverage to be notable. There's a lot of silly yet notable stuff in the world, see, e.g., List of animals awarded human credentials (which i loved even more when it was called "List of cats with fraudulent diplomas"). Agree that it is better titled "Sausage capital".--Milowent • hasspoken 14:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is pure WP:SYNTH. If an individual "sausage capital" has enough sourcing it can have its own article. But a list or set of sausage capitals requires sources that discuss the topic as a group. Without that, it is a cobbled together coatrack of disparate and largely unrelated things. And why has the scope been limited to towns? Germany is the "sausage capital of the world" according to this. SpinningSpark 12:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The way I understand the development of this article, it refers to places that self-declare themselves to be a sausage capital, vs. a description like in that book ("With over 1,500 varieties of wurst, Germany has to be the sausage capital of the world.") I can't really debate the substance of your arguments though, they are legitimate points. Where the line lies between "cobbled together coatrack" and "brilliant unusual wikipedia article", I cannot say.--Milowent • hasspoken 16:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I can see this as being sort of a disambiguation page, but it's not really an article unless there's a source that ties these together. Reywas92Talk 20:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A handful of articles using the phrase does not equate to notability of the topic. Also, how ironic that an article about a capital has incorrect capitalisation in its title :) Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Musa Yamak[edit]

Musa Yamak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable boxer who's only receiving coverage due to his death (WP:BLP1E). WBF and GBU are insignificant organisations not listed at WP:NBOX (doesn't satisfy any other criteria). My BEFORE search--besides the recent coverage of his death--found only passing mentions or routine fight results, failing GNG. – 2.O.Boxing 20:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Boxing, Germany, and Turkey. 2.O.Boxing 20:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable boxer who fails to meet any of the criteria at WP:NBOX. He had only 8 professional fights, none that show WP notability. Having a fatal heart attack in the ring is a tragedy, but is not grounds for WP notability. At most it runs into WP:BIO1E. I saw nothing else that showed he meets WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 00:24, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:33, 1 July 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. TigerShark (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

122nd Brigade (United Kingdom)[edit]

122nd Brigade (United Kingdom) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced stub. No sources found subsequently that are significant or independent (see unit war diaries). Iseult Δx parlez moi 19:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD discussion includes a proposal for merger to 41st Division (United Kingdom), and a notice of the proposed merger was posted to that page on June 25. As such, this AfD discussion may need to be extended or relisted to incorporate input from that page. Thanks, Kevin McE (talk) 13:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect to 41st Division (United Kingdom). Sources may exist to create a proper article in due course, but for now nothing will be lost through merging. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:BEFORE failed, the article is sourced. A Google books search reveals numerous examples of coverage in Western Front histories. There is substantial coverage in the history of the East Surrey Regiment[1], and that's just what can be found online. Kges1901 (talk) 12:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sources clearly exist to meet WP:GNG. This was a brigade, for crying out loud. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or Keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I'm certain we'll be able to find significant coverage in one of the many histories of the Britain in WW1. Unfortunately, this might require a search of the Internet Archive or an actual library. A Google search probably isn't going to cut it. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 07:54, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. This source suggests there is likely to be more info on the brigade's involvement in the Battle of Flers–Courcelette, the first tank action in the war. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 08:06, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We should, as a matter of principle, have articles on formations at brigade level or above that were involved in major operations in a world war regardless, even if sourcing is scarce. But in this case it is not necessary to pull such an IAR argument as plenty of sourcing exists.[2][3][4][5]. Note that the 122nd were one of the infantry formations following on behind the first ever use of tanks in warfare at the Battle of Flers–Courcelette.[6] SpinningSpark 13:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep may need some work but belongs here.KSAWikipedian (talk) 14:12, 7 July 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 Features of the Marvel Universe#Ta-Lo. TigerShark (talk) 22:08, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ta-Lo[edit]

Ta-Lo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fictional realm that is essentially a minor character in a very few comic books. This is not Gondor or Wakanda. You'll notice most of the article is in-universe, and the only reference that's not in-universe is one comic book fan site. A heavily modified version was a minor element in a comic book film, but we have a link for that one already, Ta Lo. Fails WP:FICT, but that's only an essay; more importantly, fails WP:GNG - no unrelated reliable sources write indepth about this. --GRuban (talk) 19:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC) GRuban (talk) 19:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The entry was created for a reason, Ta-Lo being back in the Shang-Chi series by writer Gene Luen Yang, he was inspired by the movie, a redirect to the Cinematic version would not be correct, even the spellings are different (although Luen Yang used Ta Lo as in the movie). Hyju (talk) 14:58, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin: Hyju (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:18, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Features of the Marvel Universe#Ta-Lo – Based on sources online, the film adaptation does appear to be more notable than the comics version, and I agree with the nominator's concerns with the in-universe nature of this article. However, it would be more appropriate to redirect to the comics location rather than the film location, which already has a redirect (Ta-Lo). If the page creator can find RS's discussing real-world aspects of Ta-Lo that demonstrate notability, I may reconsider my vote. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:18, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment was there a prior deletion of a Ta Lo article? The obvious solution would be a merge to that, but all that is there now is a redirect (despite several links to it as a “main page”. Artw (talk) 18:53, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The MCU version of Ta Lo is not notable for its own article, and there was never a standalone article for that (nor a deletion). InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:24, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as primary article for Ta-Lo and Ta Lo. Any notability issues seem to be an artifact of trying to split it between the two, but really they are one subject. Artw (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as primary article for Ta-Lo and Ta Lo. Significant pop-culture significance to members of the Asian diaspora, both in its original comic form and later feature film adaptation. Repeated efforts to delete on notability grounds an unfortunate symptom of Racial bias on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.133.6.200 (talk) 23:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Features_of_the_Marvel_Cinematic_Universe#Ta_Lo - Not a great solution, but probably the best that can done. The current article is not suitable for a standalone article due to the lack of sources, and I agree that the film version is at this point more notable than the comic version it was based on - even the Bustle article, which is one of the only non-primary sources being used here, is talking about the MCU version. Neither of the Keep arguments actually address the notability issues and lack of sources, and merely assert that it is notable. Rorshacma (talk) 06:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Raider[edit]

Brad Raider (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR, given the poor sourcing and mostly minor roles in television. Significant coverage was not found in a Google and Newspapers.com search. Yeeno (talk) 18:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 1 July 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. TigerShark (talk) 22:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Mufti[edit]

Mohamed Mufti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:GNG. – Ploni (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Politicians, Medicine, and Libya. Ploni (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unsuccessful political candidate whose lengthy bio is completely unsourced. The ar.wiki version is a stub so stubification is an option rather than delete, but other than being a surgeon who’s written some papers I’m not sure what the basis for having an article about him at all is. Mccapra (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Doesn't one need to be an MP in order to be a candidate for prime minister? I did a deep search in both English and Arabic, and was unable to find any affirmation that he was an MP, so I am unsure. Curbon7 (talk) 02:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:32, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drupad K Trivedi[edit]

Drupad K Trivedi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable scientist, article reads like a puff piece. Minor awards, fails WP:NPROF. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I agree with Headbomb, the article exaggerates his importance. SpinningSpark 17:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of publications by Manfred F.R. Kets de Vries[edit]

List of publications by Manfred F.R. Kets de Vries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Kets de Vries is not notable enough to have a dedicated list of publications. At best, a link to Google Scholar / external link to his CV on Manfred F.R. Kets de Vries is all that's warranted. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not an appropriate stand-alone list and there is no need to bother with a redirect. DanCherek (talk) 02:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Schatzkés[edit]

Joseph Schatzkés (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Schatzkés was an expert on stamps. I do not think this is enough in his case to pass any prong on academic notability, and I definetly do not think any of our sourcing is enough for GNG, since the main source is a short blurb from an organization that was giving him an award. I searched for sources and could not find any additional substantial sources, mainly just random name drops. John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:03, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and France. Shellwood (talk) 15:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All I can find in French are an orthopedic surgeon with his name, likely too niche to find in mainstream sources. The only thing I can find is this [8], he's listed in the association's database, he wrote a book about cancellations used on Mexican stamps, you can find his book if you look... Not really sensing much for notability for our purposes here. Oaktree b (talk) 19:48, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vijay Varadharaj[edit]

Vijay Varadharaj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable film director. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Refs are passing mentions. No secondary source. Described as a comedian 6 years ago. Fails WP:BIO scope_creepTalk 08:42, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This ariticle no need to deletion because many information are upadted and the information real so no need deletion Vocal Olian (talk) 03:10, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article was accepted by an AFC reviewer and has had recent improvements. Liz Read! Talk! 03:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Liz: You really need to learn what constitutes a good source as your really not very good at it, at the moment. Ref 1,2,3, 4,5, 8 are youtube videos and 10 is imdb. None can be used to determine notability. The youtube references have views ranging from 8k to about 60-70k but they are all him, talking and having a laugh. Even if they were valid references, they are primary. Ref 6 is a black-hat seo page, and is non-rs. Ref 9 is a newspaper is a cast and crew profile of a film. Not one of them is a valid secondary source. Not one of them is decent primary source. I don't want to sound as though I'm mansplaining it, but is really important. scope_creepTalk 07:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As an example a proper film review, here is an example: Dr Who that details how good the actors are. It is Peter Cushing. It is a brand review. That is a classic secondary source for an actor, proving notability. Here is one for the theatre: This Richard III is historic and stylish – but why trim Shakespeare’s best lines?. These show immediately that the actors are notable as they are proper secondary sources. Here a theatre review of the Times of India. Review: Aaeen approaches populism and divisive rhetoric with a dash of satire Its small compared to a for example, a NY Times, Los Angelos Times, the Guardian, Balitmore Sun, The Telegraph review but it is genuine valid review, from the Times of India. Very rarely do you see the brand new actors that come in, with this type of review. scope_creepTalk 07:59, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per Scope creep, the sourcing is abysmal, and nothing in the article even if properly sourced would amount to sufficient evidence of meeting WP:CREATIVE criteria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:18, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. KSAWikipedian (talk) 14:14, 7 July 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! 22:34, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Tye[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Matthew Tye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has already been deleted twice, in part because the article was largely self-promotional. Although new sources have been added to the article the mentions of the subject are either incidental to the main topic, or the sources are not significant. Furthermore, the article goes into excessive detail about this Vloggers output and verges on being promotional. Shritwod (talk) 22:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Three sources that provide significant coverage about the subject are:
    1. Mo, Yu 莫雨 (2021-07-30). ""在中國，自由都是表面的"：一位逃離牆國的美國網紅" ["In China, freedom is superficial": An American Internet celebrity who fled the wall country] (in Chinese). Voice of America. Archived from the original on 2022-06-20. Retrieved 2022-06-20.

      According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Voice of America, "Voice of America is an American state-owned international radio broadcaster. It is considered to be generally reliable, though some editors express concerns regarding its neutrality." From Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Biased or opinionated sources, "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective".

    2. Sjöberg, Alexander (2019-07-28). "'De ville ødelægge os psykisk': Den vilde historie om to vestlige YouTube-stjerner, der forelskede sig i Kina, så deres venner blive anholdt og til sidst måtte stikke af" ['They wanted to destroy us mentally': The wild story of two western YouTube stars who fell in love with China, saw their friends get arrested and had to flee in the end]. Politiken (in Danish). Archived from the original on 2022-06-20. Retrieved 2022-06-20.
    3. Liu, Youwei 劉又瑋 (2021-08-26). "賺的錢比中國多7倍！台灣擁2戰略關鍵 老外讚：一直想搬回去" [Earn 7 times more money than China! Taiwan has 2 strategic keys. Foreigner praises: I always want to move back] (in Chinese). FTV News. Archived from the original on 2022-06-20. Retrieved 2022-06-20.
    The subject has received significant international coverage in three countries: Denmark (Politiken), Taiwan (FTV News), and the United States (Voice of America). Numerous other sources provide less substantial coverage about the subject. The subject meets Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria which says:

    People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

    • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
    The article was deleted in two AfDs: 17 May 2017 and 2 July 2018 (an 8 August 2009 AfD was about a different person). I supported deletion in both AfDs. A deletion review was closed as "decision endorsed" on 30 October 2021. I submitted a draft for review as the subject had become notable since the 2018 AfD. A 2022 deletion review was closed as "allow recreation" on 28 June 2022.

    The article complies with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and provides due weight about the subject's background and activities. I do not consider the article to be promotional.

    Cunard (talk) 23:13, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. I believe there are many operators for the CCP that keep flagging this and Serpentza articles for deletion. I wish that all those would be blocked 80.169.0.210 (talk) 10:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cunard. There's no one who researches their votes more, and I'm especially convinced by the fact that he saw factors having changed and spent the time to read and research before creating the draft. I believe the sources he's included here add up to notability for Tye. Further, I think the fact that it was deleted twice is a red herring. This was not an out of process creation, the recent DRV explictly permitted it, although it didn't preclude an AfD. Not to say it's in bad faith, I just think raising it is going to lead !voters to the wrong conclusion. Star Mississippi 01:32, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing more here than there was before. Just public relations fluff. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:37, 2 July 2022 (UTC).[reply]
    Agreed, it feels very much like a puff piece rather than an encyclopaedia entry. Certainly the first two versions of the page were purely self-promotional, and although this is better it goes into way too detail and smacks of being a hagiography. Shritwod (talk) 21:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I accepted the most recent draft because I was convinced by Cunard's WP:THREE sources. "Promotional" is a reason for improving the article, not deletion; the "delete" arguments above do not explain how WP:GNG/WP:BASIC is not met by those specific sources. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:22, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - I agree with Cunard and King of Hearts that the test of general notability has been passed (and exceeded) by three sources. I respectfully disagree with Cunard as to whether the article is neutral. It was written both to praise its subject and to describe him. It should be tagged for reworking as to neutrality and tone. I also agree with Star Mississippi. The AFD nomination is being made in good faith, but is being made in good faith error. If all of the fluff is removed from the article, there will still be a C-Class article. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:14, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wrote all of the text in the current version of the article. I did not write the article to "praise its subject". I wrote the article to "describe him" based on all the reliable sources that covered him. Editors who have raised Wikipedia:Neutral point of view concerns have not pointed out which paragraphs, sentences, or phrases are non-neutral. I recommend that editors who consider the article to be non-neutral open a discussion on the article's talk page with specific examples of what is non-neutral and what can be improved. I am open to discussing on the article's talk page whether any content needs to be reworded or whether any content does not comply with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight. Cunard (talk) 04:24, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and China. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG and WP:THREE. Demetrios1993 (talk) 19:37, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I don't think Voice of America should count for notability due to the US government bias, but the other two sources presented by Cunard are enough to meet WP:NBASIC. Jumpytoo Talk 05:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (summoned by ping, !voted in older afds) agree with above points that it should be kept.Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:20, 7 July 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kiul-Barauni Section[edit]

Kiul-Barauni Section (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not satisfy WP:NPLACE. No WP:SIGCOV about it and the given sources do not demonstrate notability. – Meena • 21:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not notable at this moment. Raymond3023 (talk) 13:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails our notability guidelines. I also share the concerns that this article is OR. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:45, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Let's clarify what we're talking about here. I disagree that our notability guidelines are relevant here. A railway line as a piece of physical infrastructure is presumptively notable. It's just not possible that sufficient sourcing doesn't exist. It may be offline, or in another language, but it exists. I think it's a far more persuasive point from Jumpytoo that this article is, as it stands, original research and a conflating of two other topics. Deletion is an appropriate outcome absent sourcing that clarifies this point. If and when sources are brought forward we may want to revisit that. Mackensen (talk) 13:25, 3 July 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 Miss Universe Myanmar#Titleholders. TigerShark (talk) 22:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Miss Universe Myanmar editions[edit]

List of Miss Universe Myanmar editions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an unnecessary split of Miss Universe Myanmar#Titleholders. The table does not warrant a WP:SPLIT. – Meena • 21:51, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)Talk to Me! 19:58, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Threshold (Morris novel)[edit]

Threshold (Morris novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Could only find a single relevant source, a short review Publishers Weekly in Publishers Weekly ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)Talk to Me! 21:48, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)Talk to Me! 21:48, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In addition to the PW review, it was also reviewed in Locus #356, although I can't find the review online (see ISFDB). It also has an entry in To be Continued: An Annotated Guide to Sequels and appears to have an entry in What Do I Read Next?, 1991: A Reader's Guide to Current Genre Fiction, Fantasy, Western, Romance, Horror, Mystery, Science Fiction. pburka (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Question: Do tertiary sources generally count towards notability? I was under the impression that they didn't but re-reading the guidelines it doesn't seem like they make a judgement. If that's the case, I can withdraw this nomination. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)Talk to Me! 22:45, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the line between secondary and tertiary is often blurry, but in this case we've got two strong secondary sources (Publisher's Weekly and Locus), so it passes WP:NBOOK without any additional sources. pburka (talk) 18:31, 2 July 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. TigerShark (talk) 22:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jobaer Alam[edit]

Jobaer Alam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Md. Jobaer Alam for some background. Career since then does not add notability. Article was recreated several times under Md. Jobaer Alam, which is now “salted” to discourage recreation. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure "Jobaer Alam" articles should not delete from Wikipedia. Maybe someone did try to create the articles in name of Md. Jobaer Alam but this content has details of Jobaer Alam's academic work and all the details source find in internet. I request you, could you please check it and tell me where did I made mistake to create this content.
I want to be a contributer of Wikipedia please help me. Jonathondha (talk) 21:34, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)Talk to Me! 22:48, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trust Territory (novel)[edit]

Trust Territory (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet WP:NBOOK. My own search turned up only one reference, a passing mention in a newspaper article. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)Talk to Me! 20:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:28, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Teran John[edit]

Teran John (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep significant coverage here.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    One source isn't enough for WP:GNG Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:57, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 09:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am less than convinced the source identified above could be used to add towards GNG period, it is a feel good article about a barbershop, I do not think it meets any sourcing criteria, I even less am convinced it gives enough coverage of the subject to add towards GNG, and it clearly is not enough on its own to lead to a passing of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:15, 5 July 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. TigerShark (talk) 22:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Patate[edit]

Andy Patate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Almondo Fricain[edit]

Almondo Fricain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cambrian Biopharma[edit]

Cambrian Biopharma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Brochure article. Fails WP:NCORP. PR, Press-releases. Fails WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPDEPTH. scope_creepTalk 20:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine, and New York. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Article is far too detailed about funding and uses passing mentions but Bloomberg piece is significant coverage. Would like to see more like that but see potential. Slywriter (talk) 21:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Slywriter the Bloomberg piece is an interview with the CEO of the subject company, which obviously fails WP:SIRS as it cannot be independent from the subject. Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 08:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Brain freeze there and for some reason watching an interview was not triggering that it was an interview. Slywriter (talk) 13:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. All sources appear to fail WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:SIRS. Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 08:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:NCORP, A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. All coverage is significant and all the sources are independent. It's a literal reading of the policy. Media coverage covers the business, its history and of course the funding. To submit the popular "three best sources" source review, Fierce Biotech, Crain's and Baltimore Business Journal are all well-known, reliable sources. TechnoTalk (talk) 20:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fierce Biotech is based entirely on this PR announcement, fails ORGIND as it contains no "Independent Content". Crain's fails for the same reason as it is a summary of the announcement. BizJournals is a mere mention-in-passing because the article is actually about a different company (announcement), Vita Therapeutics, so fails CORPDEPTH. If you still believe these are good, please provide guideline-based reasoning below. For the first two, where's the "Independent Content" as per ORGIND and for the third, the in-depth information about the company as per CORPDEPTH? HighKing++ 15:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. In regards to the sources presented above, the first link that TechnoTalk provided does not work because of the way it was formatted. I had to do some digging and found that this is the correct URL. This source Fierce Biotech is an extremely niche source that specifically covers BioTech-specific industry product and finance information. Per WP:AUD, such coverage does not contribute to notability in and of itself. This is based off of this press release, therefore does not contribute to notability as it is not an independent source. Finally we have this, which is absolutely trivial coverage. The article's subject is mentioned only once in passing and absolutely fails both WP:GNG's definition of significant coverage as well as the criteria laid out at WP:SIRS. So we have a niche source, a copy of a press release, and a trivial mention. That doesn't meet the threshold for notability per either WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. I did review the other sources in the article itself and online, and there's plenty of interviews and more trivial mentions and such, but nothing that would contribute to the notability of the article's subject. - Aoidh (talk) 22:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NCORP per the analysis by Aoidh.4meter4 (talk) 08:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and others - this is garden variety corpspam with nothing in the way of truly independent sourcing. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - All the sources I'm seeing appear to be independent - I'm not seeing corpspam - what am I missing? I just Googled them and found another source, which I added. The company already launched another successful public company. Meets WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 00:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The source you added is the same kind of biotech financing specific source which is hyper-niche coverage that, per WP:AUD, "is not an indication of notability." Further it is based solely off of this press release, which makes it textbook churnalism and fails the independent sources criteria at WP:ORGIND. Even your own example is not an independent source, and launching another company is not an indication of notability. - Aoidh (talk) 02:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NCORP, and WP:ORGCRIT, which states: The guideline, among other things, is meant to address some of the common issues with abusing Wikipedia for advertising and promotion. My search online for sources has found many press releases and material that is substantially based on such press releases, which is dependent coverage that cannot be used to support notability per WP:ORGIND. Similarly, the Axios source in the article discusses the industry generally and when Cambrian Biopharma is mentioned, it is primarily "says James Peyer, the CEO of the anti-aging startup Cambrian Biopharma", "says Peyer", "says Peyer"; the article also includes quotes from other CEOs promoting their companies. The Wikipedia article also includes substantial content about funding, and per WP:ORGDEPTH, a capital transaction, such as raised capital is an example of trivial coverage, along with other standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage that are used to develop this article. This company was founded in 2019, and it seems to be WP:TOOSOON to find much more than its own promotional efforts and routine coverage of its development at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 13:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a company/organization therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply. There are particular criteria for establishing the notability of a company which goes beyond "coverage" in "reliable sources". Since the topic is a company/organization, we require references that discuss the *company* in detail. As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of "coverage" is irrelevant. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (so that's at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". With the reliance on funding announcements in mind, "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. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews fail ORGIND. Whatever is left over must also meet CORPDEPTH.
None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company - mainly funding announcements which are replicated in dozens of other "sources" containing versions of the exact same information and quotes, mentions-in-passing, etc. Topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 15:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The consensus is that insufficient sourcing that is not dependent on press releases and the like exists.. Deor (talk) 15:09, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Contentsquare[edit]

Contentsquare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. Coverage is routine. scope_creepTalk 20:12, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and France. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Routine coverage that does not satisfy WP:NCORP. Slywriter (talk) 21:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Significant coverage in multiple indepth reliable sources is required to demonstrate notability.Fabiobengario (talk) 06:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:NCORP, A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. All coverage is significant and all the sources are independent. It's a literal reading of the policy. Media coverage covers the business, its history and of course the funding. To submit the popular "three best sources" source review, Wall Street Journal, VentureBeat and Forbes are all well-known, reliable sources. If you do a WP:BEFORE, there's even more coverage in the WSJ, as well as minor coverage about the impact of the company on society. This source mentions how the company was one of the tech unicorns recognized by Macron as part of his efforts to increase the number of tech businesses in France. Reviewers can Google them as part of a proper source review. I don't like having to ref stuff and WP:OVERCITE, but will add more if that's what it takes to close this. TechnoTalk (talk) 19:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the WP:THREE references provided above, can you point to any "Independent Content" (see definition at WP:ORGIND) in those articles, especially in light of how similar they are to lots of others? There's really no chance that "Independent Content" between different publications all have the same content, facts and information. Plus, with hardly any effort we can see that in addition to the three sources you've provided, the same story was propagated around the same date by Crunchbase, Calcalistech, in4capital, bleucap and lots of others, not to mention the announcement on the company's own blog? Is it your position that they all contain "Independent Content"? HighKing++ 15:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of the sources meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. The references are either churnalism, brief mentions or regurgitated announcements. HighKing++ 15:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTPROMO and WP:ORGCRIT, The guideline, among other things, is meant to address some of the common issues with abusing Wikipedia for advertising and promotion. The VentureBeat (2021) source is related to a company announcement and largely based on an email from the company founder, with multiple grafs quoting his claims, followed by grafs that include "Contentsquare says" and "It claims". This type of source does not appear to support notability per WP:ORGIND, which includes, If a source's independence is in any doubt, it is better to exercise caution and exclude it from determining quality sources for the purposes of establishing notability. Similar but briefer dependent coverage is available from Forbes (2021), e.g. "Contentsquare chief executive and founder Cherki said" and "says Yanni Pipilis, managing partner at the SoftBank Vision Fund" forms the core of the article. I cannot access more than the preview of the WSJ (2021) coverage of the same announcement, but a capital transaction, such as raised capital is an example of trivial coverage WP:ORGDEPTH. In my online search for better sources, I have found a lot of press releases and Linkedin profiles. Beccaynr (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete more corp-spam with virtually no meaningful coverage - funding announcements are about as MILL as it gets. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Current sourcing passes WP:NCORP. I just added the two others Technotalk mentioned above mentioned above, including reports of notability in France. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One is funding news from press-release and the other one is a profile, with four lines of text, one of 26. That doesn't satisfy WP:NCORP. The profile is primary and has no information in it. scope_creepTalk 23:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The local.fr source has three sentences about the company: "This start-up has existed since 2012. It acts as a tool to allow website and app designers to monitor how their users behave while on their webpage/app. Contentsquare provides analytical information that can help to tailor websites to improve the digital experiences of users." The article is much more focused on Macron, the efforts of the government to promote start-ups, and its most recent promotion of a different company. Per WP:ORGDEPTH, inclusion in lists of similar organizations is an example of trivial coverage, and it also appears to be trivial because it is not accompanied by commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. It also appears to be uncritically-reported promotional content that is dependent on the French government, not an independent evaluation, survey, study, etc, by the article author. Beccaynr (talk) 00:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment More coverage added, from Luxury Daily, about a report the company issues that tracks billions of clicks on websites, and its impact. It's paywalled, but I can send you a PDF if you can't review it yourself. There's more than enough coverage for this to be a keep. @Praxidicae: What is spam? This is all independent coverage. TechnoTalk (talk) 17:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "What is spam" - a simple way to look that up would be google. But I think you're fully aware of what promo is. None of this is acceptable sourcing. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:58, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The Luxury Daily article is marked "ARTICLE TOOLS SPONSOR", which is advertised as "Articles tool sponsor (88×31) on Web site: $2,000 per week" on the Luxury Daily About Us page, so it does not appear to be an acceptable source. Per WP:ADS, There are three main types of spam on Wikipedia: advertisements masquerading as articles and contributions to articles; external link spamming; and adding references with the aim of promoting the author or the work being referenced. There is additional information available on the guideline page. Beccaynr (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies @Praxidicae:, I should have been more clear. Of course I know what spam is, but I was asking if you could identify the spam sourcing in the article. I'm seeing a sudden big backlash from the community to my article creation, after having nothing deleted for 6 years, and want to make sure I comply with accepted sourcing guidelines, or it's all a waste of time. Nothing looks like spam or PR to me, so I was asking for your perspective. TechnoTalk (talk) 19:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Routine funding coverage which all suspiciously mirror a press release, paid advertisements, interviews, and the odd trivial mention do not contribute to the notability of a subject. Notability's just not there. - Aoidh (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Aoidh: Please link to a press release or a paid advertisement, as an example. That will help me understand which of these reliable sources should be banned on the reliable sources board so I don't keep using them. Rather than challenging them piecemeal in AfD after AfD, would it make more sense to try to build consensus to block them as reliable sources? That would seem to be more effective in the long term. I also don't get the aversion to interviews. I understand that a pure interview can be somewhat unreliable, but depending on the publication, it can be a sign of notability that the person was selected, right? Also, reporters base their coverage on interviews, but usually rewrite the info and compile info from different sources to do a fuller piece. When I have time I'll start a relevant discussion and ping you for your feedback. TechnoTalk (talk) 18:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm confused by your comment since this content was already discussed. The press release is mentioned in HighKing's comment above, the paid advertisement on Beccaynr's comment. The individual source for each isn't the problem, as any copy of a press release is a problem. Any advertisement is a problem. The websites themselves are not the problem, and there is already consensus that such content is problematic in regards to establishing notability, as codified in WP:ORGIND. - Aoidh (talk) 21:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see your back Lightburst, again making mistakes in your assumptions. I wish I'd known you were back, I would have taken you to the arbcom case. The wsj articles is from a press-release and as usual you ignore consensus and prevailing winds scope_creepTalk 07:47, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: I would encourage you to strike your WP:PA. Please focus on the content not the editor. Lightburst (talk) 11:24, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing out "mistakes in your assumptions" is not a personal attack, Lightburst. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:26, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lightburst, which WSJ piece are you basing that on? The ones in the article are just WP:ROUTINE announcements about funding rounds. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - these are press releases compared with WSJ articles cited in this discussion:
  • Press release: Contentsquare Lands $500M Series E Investment Led by SoftBank Vision Fund 2 To Fuel Rapid Global Expansion and AI-Driven Digital Experience Innovation (BusinessWire, May 25, 2021): "Contentsquare, the global leader in digital experience analytics, today announces it has completed a $500 Million Series E funding round. The investment is led by SoftBank Vision Fund 2, which joins existing investors Eurazeo, Bpifrance, KKR, Canaan, Highland Europe, and funds and accounts managed by BlackRock — most of whom also participated in this round."
  • WSJ article cited above: SoftBank Leads $500 Million Investment in Contentsquare (May 25, 2021): "Digital experience analytics company Contentsquare has received a $500 million investment led by SoftBank Group Corp.’s Vision Fund 2, bumping the technology company’s valuation up to $2.8 billion. The SoftBank fund will join existing investors Eurazeo, Bpifrance, KKR & Co., Canaan, Highland Europe and accounts managed by BlackRock Inc., most of which contributed to the latest funding round, according to the company."
  • Press release: Contentsquare Completes $190 Million in a Series D Round, Accelerating Innovation in Digital Experience Analytics (BusinessWire, May 19, 2020): "Contentsquare, the global leader in experience analytics, announced today a $190 million Series D funding round, bringing total funding to date to $310 million. This round is led by BlackRock’s Private Equity Partners team, who joins existing investors Bpifrance (through their Large Venture fund), Eurazeo Growth, Canaan, GPE Hermes, Highland Europe, H14 and KKR, most of whom participated in this round."
  • WSJ article cited above: BlackRock Leads $190 Million Investment in Contentsquare (May 19, 2020): "Digital analytics company Contentsquare has collected $190 million in fresh funding in a Series D round led by BlackRock Inc.’s Private Equity Partners team. BlackRock joins existing investors, which include Bpifrance, Eurazeo Growth, Canaan Partners, Highland Europe, H14 SpA and KKR & Co., the company said."
Beccaynr (talk) 14:17, 10 July 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. Bbb23 (talk) 16:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Haya Maraachli[edit]

Haya Maraachli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I wrote this explanation: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haya_Maraachli&oldid=1095986395 but it's rejected and I don't really know why as it's clearly not notable. You can see it's created by a sock who's adding fake pages. This should provide all the context: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ali_Adel&oldid=1095987208 Cantthinkausernamenow (talk) 19:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. You are not making this easy to understand: rather than explain here (the normal thing to do) you've sharing a link to a diff that contains a code (A7), that we have to look somewhere else to understand the reason to delete. I don't understand what A7 means. I request that you please just state clearly here why this should be deleted. Until then, I vote speedy keep, due to no clear rational given for deletion. CT55555 (talk) 18:28, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:A7 refers to the speedy deletion criterion A7. It says this:
    This applies to any article about a real person, individual animal, commercial or non-commercial organization, web content, or organized event that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, with the exception of educational institutions.
    Basically, it means that an article can be speedily deleted if it does not make a credible claim of significance. Hope that helps you understand what the code means. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:81D5:6D64:11E:646B (talk) 19:54, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. I now know what A7 means. It seems like clearly that does not apply. An actor who appeared in multiple TV shows has a credible claim of notability.
    I'm still a bit confused about the nominator's reason, is it about a sock puppet (not relevant to notability)? Is it about there being no credible claim to notability (easily refuted in the context of this being an actor). I remain speedy keep until this is better explained. CT55555 (talk) 20:08, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like the nominator's concerns are about a combination of unreliable sourcing, promotional editing, and socking. The long explanation is a bit difficult to digest, but it doesn't seem like an obvious case where the article should be speedy deleted. The article should probably not be speedy kept either. We should simply wait until others look into the issue.
    Note to User:Cantthinkausernamenow: Please do not use speedy deletion if an article does not obviously meet the criteria. If in doubt, take the article to WP:AFD. Please don't give long explanations to speedy deleters either. They are too long for the admins to read and make a speedy decision, so please put such explanations on AFD instead. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:81D5:6D64:11E:646B (talk) 20:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for explaning it for me, you are right, yes, it didn't look notable for me because of lack of reliable sources in article. I tried to find myself but couldn't. And seeing it was created by a banned paid editors sock network account who also creates fully fake pages like Ali Adel, got more suspicious, and it was almost exclusively edited by him and his socks, so I thought it may be eligible for speedy but I could be wrong, thanks for suggestions. I agree this does not look fully fake but I think notability is still questionable. Cantthinkausernamenow (talk) 22:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Notable person, she has participated in more than 36 TV series, also there's a lot of RS around here. This is in contrast to the fake article about Ali Adel. Best --Alaa :)..! 16:40, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your comment, can you share some reliable sources that would establish notability? (I don't say there isn't but I'm bad at finding them myself)
    Yes, I agree this is not fully fake like Ali Adel, I was one hundred percent sure Ali Adel was fake but here, my concern was notability and paid promotional editing. Cantthinkausernamenow (talk) 22:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Cantthinkausernamenow there's around 750K google results about "هيا مرعشلي" (You can find hundreds of reliable sources among them), and her name is basically unique, so it is difficult to find any positive negative search results, unlike the name "Adel Ali" that matches dozens of other persons. And I repeat, if it is about notability, she is notable. --Alaa :)..! 06:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems like this was nominated based on the sourcing in the article and issues with the editor rather than a WP:BEFORE search. A quick google brings up indications of notability in English and French language sources, despite her being Syrian, suggesting notability. Examples:
  1. https://www.albawaba.com/entertainment/haya-maraachli-features-fame-caused-confusion-picture-1462757
  2. https://veryarts.com/art/148133.html
  3. https://www.nawaret.com/%D9%81%D9%86/%D8%A5%D8%B7%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A9-%D9%87%D9%8A%D8%A7-%D9%85%D8%B1%D8%B9%D8%B4%D9%84%D9%8A-%D8%AA%D8%AB%D9%8A%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AC%D8%AF%D9%84-%D8%A8%D9%8A%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%AA%D8%A7 CT55555 (talk) 00:31, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry but I'm still not convinced. None of these sources establish notability and doesn't look really reliable. You can see in Ali Adel discussion albawaba is dismissed as "Albawabhnews.com source is more likely than not churnalism and is straight-up unusable."
    Nawaret link is an useless tabloid thing.
    I don't know if veryarts is a reliable source but it looks like a copy paste thing.
    Notability and verifiability problems remain in my eyes. Cantthinkausernamenow (talk) 03:15, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nomination doesn't state a valid reason for deletion. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But I did state though, on the contrary I don't see any valid or strong arguments by "keepers" here. You don't have any valid reason for saying keep here for example.
    Notability + verifiability + lack of reliable sources + created by one of the banned users of a paid editing sock network as a blatant promotion
    All are valid reasons. Currently there are 3 links in the article (2 ref and 1 external link) and none of them is a reliable source. None. Zero. All three of them has Edit button in their pages. All three links can be edited by anyone, anything can be added or edited by anyone on all three sites. So, nothing is verifiable in the first place.
    Links posted by Ct5555 with a quick search (likely without even checking them) are weak, not reliable and not usable at all. No "significant coverage", just some short trivial-gossip-tabloid things which are not reliable or significant and not beyong trivial mentions.
    I did try that suggested Google search too and it's not 750K results, if you try to reach beyond page 10 it's reduced to around 100 results and again I was not able to find any "significant coverage" from reliable sources. All I can find is some trivial mentions, gossip-tabloid things ("she said this on instagram", "oh look she posted a sexy picture on instagram" etc.)
    This may not look like a fully fake page like the deleted Ali Adel page but I can't verify anything here either regardless, surely not with pages that can be created and edited by anyone.
    And I can not find any non-trivial significant coverage in any reliable sources either, let alone multiple. So I cannot prove notability here in any way. Cantthinkausernamenow (talk) 14:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:24, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Adel[edit]

Ali Adel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I think it can be deleted speedily but it's rejected, I wrote a long explanation here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ali_Adel&oldid=1095987208 reason for rejection may be because admin did not see this long explanation as it was removed by someone else after Cantthinkausernamenow (talk) 19:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Egypt. Shellwood (talk) 19:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an Arab Actor. there are not many references to "articles" or television interviews in English because this Actor from Egypt. TV actor Ali Adel has Arabic articles on trusted sites and is subject to the censorship of the fake news checker website, as well as his accounts on all social networking sites it have the blue verification badge "please search about that If you would like." There are a lot of Arab actors, singers, poets, writers and doctors who don't have English resources but they do have Wikipedia articles in English. Do you want to delete them all too! I believe you want vandalism the article of TV actor Ali Adel and also you put a warning that deleted the article on the pretext that there are 3 references that do not work! This is not reasons for delete all the article.the administrators here rejected this deletion of the article.there is no relation to the series “Maryam” with the actor Ali.
    Correct before on July 16, 2018 at this IP address 109.161.146.127 create article about the footballer Ali Adel which his name is same Actor Ali Adel, after that on July 20, 2018 the administration deleted the articles for the footballer Ali Adel because the article Not eligible to be on Wikipedia. In February 15, 2019 user called create new Articles for ACTOR ALI ADEL with all References and everything is going well. Which all this information is on "Official Log for Wikipedia"
    Note:The claim you made is not true. Please refer to the article log and you will see.
    I hope the admin close this discussion for delete this article because there is no issue with the article. I have edit the References that is not working. I vote speedy keep, due to no clear rational given for deletion. Thanks Entertainmentlovers (talk) 08:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable person. Also, he uses the name of a character who participated in the Bab Al-Hara series; Adel Ali. Above article deleted twice before on arwiki here (it seems an article hijack, as the initial article about Qatari football player). FYI فيصل. Best --Alaa :)..! 16:26, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The Person you mentioned the Qatari football is Adel Jadoua Ali and this is article his https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adel_Jadoua_Ali , not his name Ali Adel . Correct before on July 16, 2018 at this IP address 109.161.146.127 create article about the footballer Ali Adel which his name is same Actor Ali Adel, after that on July 20, 2018 the administration deleted the articles for the footballer Ali Adel because the article Not eligible to be on Wikipedia. In February 15, 2019 user called create new Articles for ACTOR ALI ADEL with all References and everything is going well. Which all this information is on "Official Log for Wikipedia" Entertainmentlovers (talk) 16:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources provided - whether proffered above or on the article proper - are usable in any form. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And I will provide an addendum: A Google search (string: ["ali adel" actor]) returns absolutely nothing we can cite. The chance of this article being kept is infinitesimal at best. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Jéské Couriano.--فيصل (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • keepHi My Name is Ali Adel I'm Actor from Bahrain. Actually my sister is contact me to tells me that my wikipedia articles is will begin deleted on wikipedia. I was shocked by this matter because this information is real and there is no tampering with it and the article has never been changed. I do not know how to change or modify the site because I am not an editor here. I created an account now and I didn't know about this topic
    The person who marked it, created his account and put a delete mark and then deleted his account from Wikipedia. This violated the policy of deleting the article. I think he just wants to delete an article by deliberately vandalism it or a nomination for deletion in exchange for revenge. He must first specify a clear and explicit reason why he should delete the article.
    I am an actor, not a liar, and yes, I respect all Wikipedia policies As you know, I have no influence on keeping my article, which really helps me in my job and shows the producers/companies in my region/country. These words are not out of sympathy to keep the article or not.
    I hope the specialists here If they see the article log and you will see that the mentioned player has an article in his name separate from me.
    Thank to all editors who They are working on editing my article and fix the sources. Aliadelbh (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If this sob story is intended to persuade people, it is doomed to fail. Having an article about a living person that is this badly sourced is a liability for both Wikipedia and anyone who's ever edited the article in the first place. At this point it doesn't matter who filed the AfD - if I had seen this in the state it's in presently I would have filed an AfD myself. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: there's a socking above. Also in edits deleted (see page history) --Alaa :)..! 06:08, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The imdb page is real and officially it's not fake as you claim. The links to the sources that were present are not working because the site where the sources are has been changed
Most of the sites have been maintained, but the sources are working. You can go to this sites and verify for yourself, "I mean, there has been a change in the source link."As for the article being changed from Qatari player Adel Jadoua Ali to TV actor Ali Adel, this is not true at all. Please refer to the article’s log page and you will see with your own eyes this article is originally created to Actor Ali Adel at February 12, 2019. The footballer Adel Jadoua Ali his article is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adel_Jadoua_Ali Finally, as for Maryam's film, how do you know who the Actor who participated in the film is or not? This is not evidence of Ali Adel being placed in the film. The entire article should be deleted. This is not an explicit and clear reason. Entertainmentlovers (talk) 07:15, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere did I claim that the IMDb source was "fake" - but it looks like someone's been dinking with it very recently, emphasising why we don't treat IMDb as a usable source. Generally when someone is going through the trouble to attempt to manipulate sources by directly or indirectly editing them during an AfD, those sources are considered to be completely and utterly worthless and the article they're attached to does not survive their AfD. On that note, what is your connexion to Adel and to Aliadelbh? Something reeks here, and I aim to get to the bottom of it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 07:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do claim it, IMDb profile is entirely fake. It's created around the same time they started to "hijack" articles here and arwiki and make some so called press sources (all same press releases published with money as you correctly determined in your analysis above)
Nothing on IMDb profile is true, creating a fully fake IMDb profile is the easiest thing in the world.
All the reason for these fake IMDb and wiki profiles, and paid fake articles were deceiving Instagram and Twitter to get blue badge by showing them these fake sources and making them think he's really a famous actor when he's not. And they were able to do that deception it seems. I also reported it to both Instagram and Twitter. If someone knows a better way to report this to them, please do it.
And you don't need to look too far to see the sock connections. Entertainmentlovers and Aliadelbh are same person, which is sock of this banned https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tommyjacklovesport
Other names to check:
User:Amrwardy1990
User:Orlandofoster
User:GermanKity
Socks still not banned:
User:SMSJofficial57
User:Locoman2021
All part of a paid editing socks network. You can be sure there are dozens more accounts. Cantthinkausernamenow (talk) 10:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CantthinkausernamenowThe account you are writing from appears to be duplicated. I do not trust the way you talk because you have been here less than 6 days. Even the false allegations you make are unfounded. I do not know Ali Adel personally. You created the account intentionally to vandalism the article of the actor Ali Adel. You prove from your words that you want to hurt this actor and you mean to hurt him even on other platforms We are only talking about Wikipedia here. You say that this article was stolen from the Qatari player, Adel Jadoua Ali, and this claim is also false. You should review the article's log page. Entertainmentlovers (talk) 11:42, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked the edits you have made here and you said that Actress Haya Maraachli is fake too this is false claim. If I do not know this public figure, this is not a criterion for deleting the article You say that Ali Adel and Haya Marachli both fake. Colleagues editors here give you the evidence and you say don't believe it. Remember that nothing here goes to your mine, every thing will evaluating the entire situation from Wikipedia and the community. Please don't speak like you're a judge or a policeman and hold people accountable. I do not have a relationship with Ali Adel or anyone else. if someone came here and said to write anything the amendment of the article or anything else you say is with me or follow me. Cantthinkausernamenow Entertainmentlovers (talk) 14:06, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would you stop bludgeoning the AFD? PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Entertainmentlovers: And you're a single-purpose account whose raison d'etre appears to be promoting Ali Adel. Again, who filed the AfD at this point is irrelevant as any reasonable editor would have done so regardless. I note that you're conspicuously avoiding discussing the sourcing except to make WP:WAX arguments, which implies you have no real answer to the assessment and search results. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 04:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano
I did not create a new account to defend Ali Adel, why did l create an new account and I have one account here. I also know that you will say that you don't want anyone here defending the article. It is my personal right to say what I say here and I am committed to the policy of Wikipedia. I did not against you or against anyone. Now you want to say that I made a new account? I don't know you Personal to fight with you. You have an opinion and I respect it and I have my opinion because this actor I don't know personally, I just love him as an actor. He is from the Middle East and North Africa and presented television roles with a constellation of his colleagues Actors and Actress. Entertainmentlovers (talk) 07:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do not put words in my muzzle. Defending an article's existence at AfD is one thing. Attempting to filibuster in its favour is quite another. I've already filed the relevant sockpuppet investigation, and will let the checkusers do the talking on that front. You're still a single-purpose account regardless of how the SPI shakes out, for the reasons I described above. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 10:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jéské Couriano
I have previously provided you with evidence, the most powerful reference, elcinema.com, the most famous source in the Middle East. No one can create or modify a personal file (i mean no one can create a personal file without clear representation evidence from the director of the series or film from the production company) https://elcinema.com/person/2138179 Entertainmentlovers (talk) 08:43, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the exact same elcinema source that says pretty much jack about the subject, being nothing but a content-free profile that has nothing worthwhile to cite? I may not be able to read Arabic without automated translation, but I can tell just from the amount of text that is there that elcinema is useless as a source. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 10:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano he's lying as usual, every page on that site has an Edit button. Everyone can edit and add anything. I know countless of fake profiles and data on that site. Cantthinkausernamenow (talk) 12:51, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • CU note I have struck through a comment above made by a confirmed sock of Entertainmentlovers, who is blocked for a week. Girth Summit (blether) 11:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Praxidicae and Jéské Couriano's analyses are convincing. My own searches finds nothing helpful. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 21:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ruthless Realtor (2020 film)[edit]

Ruthless Realtor (2020 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet WP:NF. Tow (talk) 14:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do NOT Delete
Has multiple third-party reviews
This film has multiple cited reviews from neutral third parties with no connection to the film itself, alongside its primary IMDb page and separate from any primary sources. Moreover, it cannot rightly be merged as there is no existing place to merge it to. While not as notable as, say, The Shining (1980 film) or other big hit blockbusters, this is one example of a TV movie page that is extremely similar to numerous others (see Wikipedia's "Category:Lifetime (TV network) films", many of which could pass for deletion if Ruthless Realtor goes along the same criteria). If there were no reviews and no buzz around the movie then it would make sense to delete the page, but there are at least 3 secondary source reviews from critics with no personal connection to the film itself. PetSematary182 (talk) 14:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)PetSematary182[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No viable third-party coverage, neither cast nor crew have articles, and the whopping two critical reviews are from non-notable sites. Lastly, IMDb is not a credible source. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:SIGCOV. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 09:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a risk. Deleting this article by the standards you've presented, despite it having two critical third-party reviews, puts a vast number of other articles on made-for-TV movies up for deletion as well, too many to even list here, which follow the same standards. This would take a huge chunk out of Wikipedia's articles on made-for-TV movies, most of which rarely receive more than a single critical review or two, and most of which use IMDb and their own theatrical credits as sources for cast/crew information. You could delete this one article, but this then suggests a rather troublesome precedent for numerous other articles. I've counted over 75 articles on made-for-TV movies on Wikipedia that have little to no critical reviews, no third-party sources and IMDb as a listed primary source. Somebody would have to go through, evaluate and delete them all, despite most of them being over 5 years old and presenting fully accurate information. I'm just saying, that's going to put up a whole collection of articles up for deletion, going by your views on what counts as a "notable" third-party critical review source. PetSematary182 (talk) 18:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC)PetSematary182[reply]
  • Delete per nom. All refs provided are unreliable to pass GNG, including contributor blogs. Thanks for the creator's work on the articles, but as they do not meet GNG (I could only find zero RT reviews and no reliable mentions for this film, or any specific film standards (the film also did not win a major award, was taught at a major university, or was released after five years), I think this should be deleted.
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) 13:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gamma Kappa Phi[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Gamma Kappa Phi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Five years after a no consensus closure at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gamma Kappa Phi, the article still cites no secodnary sources and I could find only passing mentions. The sole keep argument there was WP:ITSIMPORTANT and Give the article more time to get references - I've given it several years and nothing's happened. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pensions Management Institute[edit]

Pensions Management Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irish Institute of Pensions Managers, Guliolopez pointed out that this article is likewise in bad shape. Looking at it, I agree - almost every single source is primary and I could not find sufficient sourcing to meet WP:NORG * Pppery * it has begun... 17:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I try not to query other's contributions to these discussions, but I have to ask. In terms of "sourcing", what are you referring to? Of the 14 references in the article, 10 of them are to the subject's own website/press releases. Even outside the article, the available coverage is from primary or republished sources. In terms of it being a "major professional body", what are you comparing it to? "Major" by what measure? The article claims (without a source I note) that there are 20 employees and 6500 paid members. Other "major professional bodies" are up to 100 times bigger. Like the Project Management Institute (650,000 members), Federation of Small Businesses (UK) (160,000 members), British Medical Association (160,000), Chartered Management Institute (150,000), etc. The subject is no where near the top 100 UK membership orgs by size. Not even close. By a factor of 10... Guliolopez (talk) 13:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 21:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ramzan Ali[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Ramzan Ali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

He's notable for one thing, which isn't a particularly notable thing. Coverage that I've been able to find is limited to that feat. Cannot identify a merger target, and I don't think a redirect to the Limca Book of Records would be helpful to the reader. Star Mississippi 17:45, 1 July 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) 13:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guineans in Sweden[edit]

Guineans in Sweden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

more barely sourced cruft - can be adequately covered in Immigration to Sweden, just as the rest of this creators similar stubs. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:10, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, you could just convert this to a draft, if you'd like, Praxidicae. AmericanEditor350 (talk) 20:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, because it's not encyclopedic and draft space isn't an indefinite holding area. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I'm not forcing you to do this at all. There is a small population of Guineans who live in Sweden, even more Senegalese people live in Sweden than Guineans in Sweden. AmericanEditor350 (talk) 20:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And you're still completely missing the point here. This isn't a notable subject. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:45, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not missing the point at all. I'm not saying this is a notable topic or anything. AmericanEditor350 (talk) 20:52, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So why would we send a non-notable topic, one which you admit is not notable and therefor not suitable for an encyclopedia, to draft space? PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because I believe there is hope that one day, more resourceful information about Guineans in Sweden will pop up on the internet. AmericanEditor350 (talk) 21:04, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 21:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cameroonians in Italy[edit]

Cameroonians in Italy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

more barely sourced cruft - can be adequately covered in Immigration to Italy, just as the rest of this creators similar stubs. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:10, 1 July 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) 13:40, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zimbabweans in Italy[edit]

Zimbabweans in Italy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

more barely sourced cruft - can be adequately covered in Immigration to Italy, just as the rest of this creators similar stubs. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:09, 1 July 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) 13:41, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Darryl Glenn[edit]

Darryl Glenn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet the WP:NPOL guidelines as he was only a candidate and did not win the positions he ran for. All coverage provided is only in the context of his candidacy. - 2pou (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Colorado. 2pou (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, fails WP:NPOL. Theroadislong (talk) 17:12, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Non-notable candidate, fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 20:07, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-winning candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates per WP:NPOL #1, Colorado Springs is not a global city for the purposes of handing him a presumption of notability under NPOL #2 just for having served on its city council, and the sourcing is not establishing a reason why he would be more encyclopedically notable than other non-winning candidates or non-metropolitan city councillors. Bearcat (talk) 21:33, 1 July 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) 13:43, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Malians in Sweden[edit]

Malians in Sweden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

yet another crufty x in y article, poorly sourced and can be covered in the relevant immigration article. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am not offended by anthing, nor do I mean to argue, be rude, or violate any Wikipedia guidelines, but I do not feel the need for this article to be deleted because I believe this is essential information, and I believe people need to know that there are Malians who live in Sweden. AmericanEditor350 (talk) 17:08, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You simply aren't listening - multiple editors, I count at least six are telling you not only are your sub stubs useless but they're also outright wrong and not appropriate as standalone articles. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am listening, please understand where my heart is at. Wikipedia's guidelines can be a little complicated for me to understand sometimes. AmericanEditor350 (talk) 17:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"stop doing this disruptive thing" is not a guideline and it isn't confusing, if you don't understand what this means, no one can really help you. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to be disruptive. AmericanEditor350 (talk) 17:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Africa, and Sweden. Shellwood (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I unfortunalely would disagreee with you, sir. One reliable source is good enough. AmericanEditor350 (talk) 18:04, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Except you're wrong and the source doesn't support the bulk of the content, but keep digging this hole. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:10, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but no. See WP:SIGCOV. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per the others of the same ilk. WP:OR which fails WP:GNG by a long way.  Velella  Velella Talk   18:45, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This article seems like it could be notable as a list of notable Malian-Swedes if pared down to just the list and retitled. TartarTorte 19:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? AmericanEditor350 (talk) 20:17, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Upon further research no. There isn't enough discussion about Malian-Swedes to pass muster of WP:LISTN anyways. I thought that could be a way to salvage, but I was mistaken. Sorry about that. If you can find anything to help show that a list of Malian-Swedes would pass WP:LISTN which would require reliable sources talking about Malian-Swedes as a group then it will work. I guess there's the possibility to incubate that in draft/user space. TartarTorte 20:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, I think it's better off as a draft. AmericanEditor350 (talk) 20:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And I know there is a very small population of Malians who live in Sweden, therefore it may be harder. AmericanEditor350 (talk) 20:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: Per WP:ATD-I and after discussion with the original page author above, it seems like draftifying and allowing more time to find sources, especially Swedish sources, which might help show notability. While I have not been able to find enough to have it meet WP:GNG, it seems like incubation is a good alternative to deletion in my mind. TartarTorte 20:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the behavioral problems surrounding this and the evident lack of sourcing, I do object to draftification. See the related ANI thread. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, @Praxidicae, I had not seen the ANI thread until now. While salvaging could be possible with Swedish language sources, due to the ANI thread and the other similar articles, it seems there is not a compelling argument for WP:ATD-I and I did not see a route forward with any other ATDs. I see no other option than delete. TartarTorte 20:49, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – like the articles on Senegalese and Ghanian people in Sweden, this is a mess of original research and imagined claims based on a data base that doesn't provide the information the page creator imagines it does. --bonadea contributions talk 23:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable article with no refs indicating notability. VickKiang (talk) 23:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails GNG, & WP:NOTSTATS Atsme 💬 📧 00:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 21:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Structura Gallery[edit]

Structura Gallery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability by way of a WP:BEFORE search, and the current sourcing. Only mentions of the gallery or listings of shows, or mentions of artists who exhibited, but could find nothing ABOUT the gallery itself, certainly no SIGCOV. Netherzone (talk) 17:03, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Tone 21:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Motor City Rockers[edit]

Motor City Rockers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG yet, redirect to Federal Prospects Hockey League until more substantial coverage is available. Currently coverage is limited to recycled press releases and announcements, as the team is not scheduled to begin playing until an apparently still-unscheduled date.

Source assessments:

  1. The Oakland Press interview in a local paper with essentially no independent analysis
  2. Jnews.uk press release
  3. Grosse Pointe News lightly edited press release with no significant independent analysis
  4. ProHockey News press release
  5. Macomb Daily This source seems usable, although the coverage is essentially just of the announcement that the team will be formed, so one could quibble about the depth of coverage. N.b. this is the same author as source 1, Macomb Daily and The Oakland Press appear to be syndicating the same reporter's coverage.
  6. Bus league hockey The only cited source with actual analysis, alas it's a blog that does not publish editorial information and likely falls short of being an RS.
  7. The Voice I'm getting a dead link right now, but this was the same syndicated article as source 1.
  8. Metro Times, lightly edited press release

I was unable to find any superior coverage searching online and on Proquest. All told, we have at most 1 or 2 sources that would count towards GNG if we're being extra generous, so I think this is still WP:TOOSOON, and creation of an article should wait until we have substantial coverage of the team in action, not just announcements of its future establishment. signed, Rosguill talk 16:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep this is notable, it is way better then what it used to beCatfurball (talk) 16:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep though I personally may not have as much of an interest in the team, other people are, and the references used seem quite adequate. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 17:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It is highly unusual to delete an article on a professional sports team, let alone an active one acknowledged by the league [9][10] to be gearing up to start play in October. I might not find these sources adequate enough for a team that had never taken the ice and never would, or for a team we knew for a certain fact was defunct, but part of TOOSOON is the premise that there is not enough information available to sustain an article. This is not the case here. Ravenswing 00:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's more unusual to see a presumption of notability for an upcoming minor league team based on threadbare routine coverage; Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability. signed, Rosguill talk 19:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We will have to agree to disagree on your claims of "threadbare routine coverage." I don't find it such, myself. Neither do most of the Keep proponents. Ravenswing 19:59, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There are dozens of smaller American and Canadian hockey teams outside the NHL that have articles. Don’t understand the toxic attitude of deletionists, who want to remove otherwise well written articles. --StevenBjerke97 talk 21:47, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to improvements. Even if some of those sources are questionably reliable, the Metro Times is enough. Jontesta (talk) 14:16, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • What improvements have been made since it was nominated on 1st July? -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • None. There are, however, many such since the nom tried redirecting the article a couple weeks ago. Ravenswing 19:59, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 21:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Land and Water Conservation Fund Reauthorization and Fairness Act[edit]

Land and Water Conservation Fund Reauthorization and Fairness Act (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nonnotable law that died in committee. Gabe114 (talk) 15:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Carter[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Holly Carter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability and sources. DavidEfraim (talk) 14:51, 1 July 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) 13:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer Zimmerman[edit]

Spencer Zimmerman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Failed candidate for political office. Completely fails WP:GNG, as a WP:BEFORE search revealed no sources beyond passing mentions. Curbon7 (talk) 14:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Nebraska, and Wisconsin. Curbon7 (talk) 14:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete About the only time he seems to have run in connection with a major political party, he lost in the primary. He is not notable as a politician because he was never elected, and the coverage he has gotten as a candidate does not rise to the level to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. and John Pack Lambert. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 20:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they didn't win — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one — but this is referenced almost entirely to WordPress blogs and raw tables of election results that are not support for notability. The bars he would have to clear are either (a) preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten him a Wikipedia article anyway, or (b) a credible reason why his candidacy was markedly more notable than everybody else's candidacies, but neither of those things are in evidence here at all. Bearcat (talk) 21:44, 1 July 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) 13:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

James McLynas[edit]

James McLynas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable political candidate who unsuccessfully ran for local office. WP:GNG appears to be failed, as the sources currently cited are either not reliable, or provide little to no WP:SIGCOV; a WP:BEFORE search did not reveal anything different. Curbon7 (talk) 14:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Law, and Florida. Curbon7 (talk) 14:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. A case of WP:REFBOMB. Although there are numerous citations, virtually all are either non-WP:RS-compliant or lack significant coverage of the subject. Like the nom., I also searched the web and found no sourcing that would satisfy the notability guidelines. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 20:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being unsuccessful candidates for county sheriff, and the sourcing (which is indeed very heavily reference bombed to Facebook posts and YouTube videos and other primary sources that are not support for notability) is not establishing a reason why he would be more nationally significant than other non-winning candidates for county sheriff. Bearcat (talk) 21:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an overly promotional article. Candidates for sherrif, and even holders of this office, are just not inherently notable. The article talks about how many votes he got, but this seems more to be written to boost him, it does not actually analyze the merits of the election. So far he lost one time, lost the primary the next time he ran, and says he will run again in 2 years. This is not the stuff notability is made of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:21, 5 July 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) 13:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sierra Leoneans in Italy[edit]

Sierra Leoneans in Italy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Non-notable group; fails WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not a database for every expat group under the sun. Curbon7 (talk) 14:05, 1 July 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 Immigration to Italy. Liz Read! Talk! 21:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kenyans in Italy[edit]

Kenyans in Italy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Non-notable group; fails WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not a database for every expat group under the sun. Curbon7 (talk) 14:04, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted by Reaper Eternal: CSD A7 No credible indication of importance. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:09, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Invader (band)[edit]

Invader (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no evidence this ban exists nor that they're notable in any language. PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:03, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appointocracy[edit]

Appointocracy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looks like a DICDEF/Neologism, smells like a DICDEF/Neologism, probably is a DICDEF/Neologism. Stood up on Naomi Klein's use of a word that has also appeared in a couple of articles. It doesn't appear in the second of the two sources presented, as far as I can see. And it's not a 'word' according to dictionaries... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:53, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The second source (The Economist article) does indeed mention the term, but you need full access to see it. "We should aim for one person, one vote across Somalia," says Neil Wigan, Britain's ambassador. "But exactly what's going to be possible, we'll have to see." Ken Menkhaus, a Somalia expert from Davidson College in North Carolina, says some kind of "appointocracy" is once again inevitable. My impression is that both examples are nonce words – made up for the occassion – not real examples of ongoing usage. Although there are a few independent usages relating to the aftermath of the Iraq war [11][12][13]. The central point here is that Wikipedia is WP:NOTDICT so we don't do neoligisms per WP:NEO. There is a complete absence of sources discussing this concept as a recognised form of government so we can't have an article claiming that that is what it is. The examples described are more along the lines of a tactic used by an occupying power to maintain its authority rather than an ongoing, self-sustaining form of government.

    If this is deleted, we should also remove its entry in List of forms of government since it is not established that this is a form of government. SpinningSpark 16:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Excellent topic for a future dissertation or book, but not yet ready for Wikipedia. Wikipedia Library turns up at least one other instance of the term being used with regard to the National Democratic Alliance government in India, but at this point without the secondary literature properly defining "appointocracy" as a form of government, it seems this can only result in OR. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ayurveda Retreat[edit]

Ayurveda Retreat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, Just a fancy name for the alternate medicine shops. Per WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE this topic does not rise to the level of notability to be covered in a separate article. Venkat TL (talk) 12:34, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, and Medicine. Venkat TL (talk) 12:34, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails general notability guideline due to insufficient coverage. The Daily Hive reference is paid advertising and hence not independent. The Conde Nast source is possibly advertising but at any rate does not cover the article subject in detail. The Outlook source mentions nothing about the Ayurveda Retreat - it discusses another retreat that "provides education and services in wellness and health through...yoga, Ayurveda", it has nothing to do with the article subject specifically. Same with Hindustan Times. And Business Today. And Indian Express. Nothing else of substance available. The article itself looks like advertising but I do not know for what - because there isn't even a specific company? This article appears to have no real subject? The actual topic of Ayurveda is covered by an excellent Wikipedia article. There is simply no reason for this new article to exist and it may possibly meet criteria A10 for speedy deletion. However seeing as it's reached AFD, happy to contribute an argument for clear deletion. MaxnaCarta (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Is this supposed to be a generic article talking to the concept of ayurveda retreats or a company? It's really not clear from this poorly sourced, slightly odd article. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am the nominator of AfD, The article creator and approver have suggested this to be draftified. I have no objections if it is either draftified or deleted. This topic is unlikely to be notable in future though.Venkat TL (talk) 13:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not support draftifying because that’s for articles which have potential to meet notability standards and I do not see how that is possible with the total lack of coverage. MaxnaCarta (talk) 14:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Venkat TL,MaxnaCarta and Alexandermcnabb. Thanks for your valuable suggestions. Request you to suggest moving to draft stage for improvement or redirect in the interest of an amicable platform. Thanks in advance. Gardenkur (talk) 13:49, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails notability. Authors ca make copy in draftspace, but I believe the AfD discussion should go to completion regardless. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 14:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. Thanks for your valuable inputs and based on the inputs I got,I support the deletion. Apologies for confusion. Looking forward to work with you all. Thanks. Gardenkur (talk) 14:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Gardenkur is the creator and per a discussion we had elsewhere now supports deletion. North8000 (talk) 14:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The creator Gardenkur agrees. Not a distinct topic. Which automatically means wp:notability isn't and can't be established. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the arguments above. no apparent notability. --2A01:C22:7231:3800:DC94:D85A:E399:69DE (talk) 11:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The LIP Magazine[edit]

The LIP Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Now defunct magazine, currently memorialised on the co-publisher's website. Fails WP:GNG, WP:WEB. No evidence of notability during its short life and none online. Sourcing is merely a list of interviews they ran, zero evidence of sustained independent coverage. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:01, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Ip Man Ki[edit]

Ryan Ip Man Ki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NPOL, there is no guideline for surveyors but he is no more notable now than he was when this page was deleted following a Jan 2022 PROD. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:52, 1 July 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. Modussiccandi (talk) 10:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Earl Dittman[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Earl Dittman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not seem particularly notable as either a publisher or critic, and was unable to find independence coverage of any significance. – Ploni (talk) 03:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remark: I had not noticed that the article was previously nominated for deletion. It doesn't look like the article has been improved since then, but the arguments in favour of keeping may still hold up. –Ploni (talk) 03:44, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What's here seems pretty unbalanced and is overwhelmingly negative to Dittman. I removed some material that was a violation of WP:BLP, an assertion stood up on a 404 page as a source, but I'd question whether the majority of content in this short article is WP:DUE - something I'll leave to editors with an interest in the subject. As for WP:GNG, I have my very deep doubts, note the previous AfD was undersubscribed and don't think the sources on offer confer notability to a writer of movie reviews with very little indepth coverage. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Basically he is a film reviewer who gets tabloidy mentions for doing reviews that do not in most people's views conform to the quality of the reviews. There is not really any high quality coverage. Wikipedia is not meant to have articles on everyone who is ever briefly mentioned somewhere. I do not see how he actually meets any reasonable inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per previous AfD and sources existing within the article. Artw (talk) 23:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The number of sources a WP:BEFORE check comes up with is lengthy, especially in the books department. This book covers him across three pages. He is mentioned briefly here, has interviewed Sandra Bullock and Ryan Reynolds as mentioned in this book, his interview of Schwarzenegger is mentioned in this book and the list continues on from here. He is covered significantly here by CNN, mentioned briefly by the New York Post here and again the list continues. Countless hits all over the internet. The article needs work, but AFD is not cleanup. Notability guideline is easily satisfied. MaxnaCarta (talk) 13:24, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep Agree, with the CNN and the other mentions, passes notability standards. Oaktree b (talk) 16:10, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep grudgingly. While Dittman is a shitstain in the world of film criticism, he’s gained enough notoriety for that over the last two decades that it makes him notable enough for an article. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 01:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Regardless of whether he's made a positive contribution to society or not, he has received sufficient coverage to meet WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:31, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. ✗plicit 12:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Halloweens[edit]

Halloweens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NME has actually written about this collaboration twice, with another interview published in 2020. However, that's about it - no other coverage for what appears to be a relatively non-notable side project from two members of a notable group. "Written about non-trivially by multiple reliable sources." Fails WP:GNG; WP:BAND. Already amply covered, BTW, in The Vaccines' article. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and United Kingdom. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (but expand and improve). They have indeed been discussed by NME twice: a short intro at [14] is already cited in the article, but they also have a much more robust feature piece at [15] (not currently cited). It appears that they got some reliable media notice because their sound is quite different than that of their full-time band. They have another reliable profile at [16] and various reviews and intros at [17], [18], [19], among others. The current state of the WP article does not reflect their media coverage thus far. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:58, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:27, 1 July 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 10:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Farberger[edit]

Caroline Farberger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

CEO of redlinked company, appears to have generated discussion as a trans-gender CEO. No other evidence of notability, fails WP:GNG; WP:NBUSINESSPERSON as a CEO. If there's inherent notability (putting aside bravery) in being a publicly trans CEO, I defer to others. My reading is, no. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Swedish version of the article has more sources. In addition to being the CEO of a company, she is a published author. The attention she received in the media stems from her writing, not from her business leadership. Vexations (talk) 13:51, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep i created the article due to WP:SIGCOV: profile articles written in Bloomberg and Der Spiegel[1][2] (the two refs of the English article at the time of nom). GNG is agnostic about what a subject is notable for. Why should SIGCOV about being trans not still be SIGCOV? The trans part should be expanded on in the article though, otherwise very stubby. I just added a bit and updated the article. Seems like she left ICA Gruppen for some fund ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 18:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Quecke, Franca (2022-01-28). "Coming-out als CEO: Der Weg eines Topmanagers, vom Mann zur Frau - DER SPIEGEL". Der Spiegel (in German). ISSN 2195-1349. Retrieved 2022-01-28.
  2. ^ "CEO who was once man brings unique gender perspective". Bloomberg News.
Comment: in addition to the international media coverage she has in fact recieved plenty of coverage in swedish newspapers at several points for various reasons: coming out as trans in 2018, winning "LGBTQ-person of the year" in 2019, adding coverage for costs associated with domestic violence to the ICA homeowners insurance in 2019, before and after participating in Sommar i P1 in 2019, participating in Vinter i P1 [sv] in 2019, publishing her book in 2020 and changing jobs in 2022. I'm seeing a sustained media interest in this person and perhaps this is a case of WP:GNG superseding any specific notability policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Draken Bowser (talk • contribs) 13:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:HEY – the article has been significantly rewritten since it was taken to AfD. As Draken Bowser writes, there's a sustained media interest in her and the article meets WP:GNG. /Julle (talk) 21:58, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The CNBC and Economic Times sources demonstrate that GNG is passed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep satisfies GNG per the above. Draken Bowser (talk) 15:11, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. —Natalie RicciNatalie 20:37, 3 July 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 10:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guru Karunamaya[edit]

Guru Karunamaya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SIGCOV. References are non-existant. scope_creepTalk 09:57, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Hinduism, and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No notability established in article, none evidenced by search. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I was surprised to find not just hardly any sources in English, but basically none in Telugu either. The image has been uploaded from the temple's media kit, and the only vaguely plausible source, Bowden's The Goddess and the Guru: A Spiritual Biography of Sri Amritananda Natha Saraswati (i.e., a book about a different guru) was in the article as three separate refs; he's mentioned there between pages 654 and 657. In the absence of other sources, and indeed of anything much about Karunamaya at all, we must conclude he is not notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:39, 1 July 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 10:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Musaddiq Abbasi[edit]

Musaddiq Abbasi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A notable SPAD? Whatever next! No elected role, no notability outside this position, little enough inside it. Sole coverage relates to appointment. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:31, 1 July 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 10:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

East African Christian College[edit]

East African Christian College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NSCHOOL. No independent, extensive coverage to back up this two-line stub about a non-notable Anglican school. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:48, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Christianity, and Rwanda. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:48, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment probably TOOSOON. Thi9s looks as if it is a tertiary level college, not a mere high school, but until we have more than a stub saying that it exists, I do not think we can regard it as notable. I will revise my view if the article is expanded. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 3 July 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! 21:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doon Business School[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Doon Business School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previous article instances were deleted at AfD in 2019 and subsequently as repost and deleted drafts. This new instance contains references to news releases on a 2013 sponsored school event and a 2015 cultural festival; neither these nor anything found in searches (such as this brief listing) provides the level of coverage needed to demonstrate notability has now been attained by this institution and to overturn the previous AfD consensus. AllyD (talk) 07:53, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi i have added news release jut provide citation to founder name, the Bizquiz annual event which conducted by Doon Business School every year in dehradun and news is not a sponsored. providing the following evidence of notability
Google news - "Doon Business School"
Google Scholar
Google Free image SumitVerma18 (talk) 12:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These sources demonstrate no notability at all. Can you please format these links properly rather than just pasting them? MaxnaCarta (talk) 13:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should visit the google scholar and Google new link that i have given, where you will find reason why this institution should be on wiki.
also this educational institute is run by Eskay Education Trust which is not for profit organization registered under The Indian Trusts Act, 1882 and next time will keep links in format. SumitVerma18 (talk) 03:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unequivocally. Totally insufficient notability due to a lack of coverage. Private business school that does not meet GNG or the specific notability guideline at WP:ORG. If this page is substantially similar to the original which was deleted after a discussion then it should be speedy deleted per G4. MaxnaCarta (talk) 13:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This educational institute is run by Eskay Education Trust which is not for profit organization registered under The Indian Trusts Act, 1882 which is sufficient for notability. SumitVerma18 (talk) 03:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
hi as per my research on Doon Business School, i have found it good to be on wiki and meeting all the criteria of notability and i started this article even it was deleted before. SumitVerma18 (talk) 04:59, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep this article as it is meeting all the criteria of notability, please recheck the reference's on article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SumitVerma18 (talk • contribs) 06:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Coedless larry thanks for the opinion, you have edit the article with reason individual research should not be published here but for you information every research paper is only be done with college or university and they are not individual research papers they are on behalf of Doon Business School and already published one. SumitVerma18 (talk) 09:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many educational institutions publish research papers, but we don't tend to list them in the Wikipedia articles about those institutions. The only case for doing so in my view is if the papers are notable in and of themselves, through having received significant independent coverage. Anyway, this is a discussion for the article's talk page, not a deletion discussion. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Education institution provide support and affiliation to research paper not for publication, and research paper that is published means it is affiliated to university or an educational institution which can be a part of educational institute wiki page. SumitVerma18 (talk) 03:31, 7 July 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 Family Guy (season 19). ✗plicit 10:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peterminator[edit]

Peterminator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to satisfy WP:NEPISODE; no real-world information and purely formed of plot. I did a search for any production and reception info, but couldn't find any WP:RS. – DarkGlow • 07:49, 1 July 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 10:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Killval[edit]

Killval (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Rapper, no chart positions for music, no notability - no in-depth or significant coverage. Article sourced to blogs, YouTube and there's very little else on offer out in the big, mean world... Fails WP:GNG; WP:SINGER Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:28, 1 July 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 10:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Messer[edit]

Alan Messer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

References do not satisfy WP:N KSAWikipedian (talk) 06:57, 1 July 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 10:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RouteNote[edit]

AfDs for this article:
RouteNote (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After multiple declines of Draft:RouteNote, the article was created on the mainspace. No indication of WP:CORPDEPTH. Does not appear to meet WP:NCOMPANY. Brief mentions in Billboard and The Indian Express are not enough to establish notability. Hitro talk 06:34, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Companies. Hitro talk 06:34, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I tagged the previous version of this mainspace article, one of which was that it was substantially similar to a third-party wiki. While this probably isn't copyright violation since the source is CC-BY-SA 3.0, I should note the continued similarity between the current version of this article as well as the draft to that same website. Someone should look into this. —twotwofourtysix(talk || edits) 09:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Indeed significantly and confidently fails WP:CORP. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:52, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No real SIGCOV to speak of, so fails CORP by a significant margin. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:08, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of any SIGCOV from reliable independent sources. Fabiobengario (talk) 06:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:57, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Artyom Savatyugin[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Artyom Savatyugin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:59, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as this article is ineligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:13, 1 July 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! 21:43, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Epworth Forest, Indiana[edit]

Epworth Forest, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Actually the Epworth Forest Conference Center, which describes itself as "a Christian summer camp in northern Indiana." It's run by the Methodists, but though it's a century old, it is otherwise not well-known: I got clickbait-level GHits on it. Mangoe (talk) 04:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Tippecanoe Township, Kosciusko County, Indiana. This is difficult. I'm going off the guide that inhabited places have inherent notability per WP:GEOLAND, because it's hard to find sources on this that aren't too affiliated; this is circumstantial. It's true that it's a Christian summer camp in that it sort of fulfills those functions; it's not true that it's merely a camp. First we find real estate listings categorized under Epworth Forest: [20] [21]. We also see this page giving some history on the subject; it's essentially a religious summer vacation spot/retreat center/conference center. It's clear, though, that it's populated, and certainly more populated in the summer. We also see archived photographs of the area from the 40s: [22] (also see similar items on the right). Under WP:GEOLAND, this has to then fulfill WP:GNG. It doesn't seem to, though there may be some old newspaper clipping out there that I either don't have access to or didn't find. I urge against deletion though owing to some inherent notability; redirects then should target the next highest polity. Iseult Δx parlez moi 09:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see we do have a real estate locale here but it's still non-notable,a nd redirecting to larger areas is almost always a bad idea because those articles don't say anything about the place. Mangoe (talk) 01:09, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A neighborhood apparently but not a notable one. Doen't belong in the township article either. Reywas92Talk 14:13, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no coverage has been put forth to suggest that this is anything other than a church came and a similarly named housing development. Neither of those gets the GEOLAND pass, no indication that it meets WP:GNG, and a redirect would not be appropriate because it would be WP:UNDUE to mention this location in a township or county article. Hog Farm Talk 13:49, 7 July 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 10:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scientists and Engineers for America[edit]

Scientists and Engineers for America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of continuing (or past) notability. Sources are now unavailable and archived sources do not support notability. – S. Rich (talk) 04:03, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Consensus was that the broader topic of a Top Gun franchise is notable. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 05:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Top Gun (franchise)[edit]

Top Gun (franchise) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Literally nothing has changed about it as a franchise that wasn’t already in the world when the Top Gun (film series) article was discussed in 2019. Like, even through the pandemic, there’s not much if any supplemental media, like video games, TV series, or even something like Battle at Big Rock or the Dominion prologue to bolster franchise status. There hasn’t been a Top Gun video game since 2012. Maverick had nothing surrounding it, it’s its own little island and while another sequel might earn the series franchise status, it would not have quick enough turnaround for this article to be sustained without at least one deletion. See also Talk:Top Gun#Requested move 28 June 2022 for aligning reasoning CreecregofLife (talk) 03:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Multiple films, soundtracks, corresponding singles, video games, and cultural impact meet the standards for a franchise. A franchise is an expansion of the original media, well the Top Gun franchise is an expansion of the original film. It meets the standard of a franchise. This is why it is a page about the franchise including music and video games, and not just a page about the film series. I agree that if the page were titled "Top Gun (film series)", it would not be a suitable page, but "Top Gun (franchise)" is inclusive towards all related and future media to Top Gun, which is deserving of a page. Zvig47 (talk) 16:52, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Music, and Video games. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While there are only 2 films in the franchise there are a massive amount of games that need a series page, this franchise page can function as the landing page for both. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Zxcvbnm. Timur9008 (talk) 11:42 , 2 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep per Zvig47 LockzZ (talk) 13:11, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Notable franchise.DavidEfraim (talk) 15:11, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: From strictly a film perspective, this is among the most famous movie franchises in history – has significant cultural impact not only on pilots/aviation or military communities but also on broader American culture. Exceedingly well-known and well-loved and among the highest-grossing franchises ever. Slowtationjet (talk) 18:29, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nomination. BilCat (talk) 21:16, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This seems like it will just be a WP:CONTENTFORK. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 23:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per Nom, BilCat. Wait for the hattrick (if it comes) then it'll be more of a franchise. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:04, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as sufficient sources discuss the two movies, the 1983 story, and video games. There is even a lawsuit over who owns the series. Pikavoom Talk 08:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep- Per Zxcvbnm. Two films, soundtracks, and several video games are all right. While there hasn't be a new one since 2012, right now it's borderline notable to me. VickKiang (talk) 08:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to say the no video game since 2012 argument is very weak, as notability is not temporary. The The Naked Gun (franchise) has been dead entirely since 2012, that's not cause for deletion. It's also pretty obvious we'll see new video games coming sometime. There's already coverage like this and an expansion pack for Flight Simulator. Even without the probably coming games, there's over twenty years of game releases. Pikavoom Talk 09:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I could kind of see the argument, but IMO it isn't worthy of deletion. Many thanks for your reply! VickKiang (talk) 09:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Zvig47.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 15:47, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Since there are a large number of video games connected with the 2 films we clearly have grounds for arguing that there is indeed a media franchise here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:27, 5 July 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. SouthernNights (talk) 17:39, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Boarding House Blues[edit]

Boarding House Blues (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails the requirements of WP:NFILM, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. IMDb is not an acceptable or reliable source. Dan arndt (talk) 23:54, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - This film has over 15 incoming links and it features involvement of several notable actors and filmmakers which have their own articles. This is a strong indication of sufficiently significant attention. The fact that the film is included in the Black Film Archive shows that this attention persists over time. --Bensin (talk) 11:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This film is listed in at least 16 other databases according to Wikidata here. --Bensin (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Hold on, 4meter4, "directly and in detail"? The first link to "Icons of African American Comedy" is barely a passing mention; the next link is to a brief mention of the film in a section of a book that is about the Berry Brothers, not this film; the next link is to a paragraph about the career of the actress Moms Mabley, not this film; the next link is to an entry in an A-Z guide that has only a routine directory-like entry for the film listing performers and director, nothing more; the next one is an exact repeat of the A-Z guide entry, not a new reference (I am concerned you did not notice this) ; the last is an extremely brief mention in another published piece which is, again, about Mabley, not this film. All of these combine to show evidence that the film existed, and that it had some famous people who participated in its creation, but the apparent dearth of actual discussion of the film itself is a strong argument against its notability, wouldn't you agree?
Also: what part of WP:NFILM does this film meet? I have looked over the criteria there and this film doesn't look like it meets ANY of the points mentioned which would qualify it under this SSG. Can you specify which one(s) you believe it meets? A loose necktie (talk) 08:09, 4 July 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 13:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SAB TV (Pakistan)[edit]

SAB TV (Pakistan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Neither qualify WP:GNG nor WP:ORG. AHatd (talk) 02:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist, to find a third opinion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:51, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Holding a license does not confer notability. There's none in evidence in the article and none I could find online. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication of notability, without any refs online, definitely does not meet GNG. VickKiang (talk) 07:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. DeVosMax is in error; see WP:EXISTS. Not notable. FalconK (talk) 02:56, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5. ✗plicit 13:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Montemayor[edit]

Joey Montemayor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability is not established, no WP:RS. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 02:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator.. Nomination withdrawn, nom listed for speedy delete as a copyvio (non-admin closure) Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Universalisation (cultural studies)[edit]

Universalisation (cultural studies) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:neologism A loose necktie (talk) 02:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Torpey[edit]

Erin Torpey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NACTOR. One notable role on One Life to Live, but nothing else of note afterward. Google search yields nothing substantive. Bgsu98 (talk) 01:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. The nominator's argument (lack of significant coverage) was not convincingly challenged by the those !voting to keep. Modussiccandi (talk) 10:47, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago After Dark[edit]

Chicago After Dark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails the requirements of WP:NFILM, lacks significant coverage (not a series of mentions in passing) in multiple independent secondary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 00:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This article needs work that much is clear but I do believe this film is notable. It might not pass the requirements of WP:NFILM but the company that made this film was one of the few that made movies with all black casts. I'm not comfortable with removing this article at this time as it is a small but important facet of 1940's American film history. There is a lot that needs to be done to salvage this article and I would vote to remove delete it if it wasn't for its historical importance for the time. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 06:33, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 00:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I completely agree with Dr vulpes above. The page needs work, but the subject absolutely played a critical role in cinematic history. It needs love, not to be deleted and forgotten about. DeVosMax [ contribs • talk • created media ] 08:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any possibiity of locating sources to establish notability? Trying a relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:04, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete While the previous comments are understandable, could any refs be found that show notability? Upon a search, I couldn't find much refs to show GNG. If any are provided, I will change my vote. Thanks! VickKiang (talk) 08:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There doesn't seem to be enough substantial coverage about the film on its own; it is usually mentioned in passing as one of many examples of the 500 race movies from this era (this one is from 1946). It was shown for the first time in 40 years at the 2000 Harlem Week Black Film Festival; it seems better known for its posters rather than the content of the film itself. (In 2000, the plot was described as, "A lady escapes from the 'nut' house in this comedy classic.") An October 1985 article in Film Comment by film historian Donald Bogle about race films characterizes this one and Lucky Gamblers as "a blatant tribute to male chauvinism" based solely on how they were marketed. Whether that is a fair assessment of the film itself or not, it appears there are many other films of this genre that are more notable than this one. (I was originally going to suggest "Merge" with Race films, but as there's no obvious place to include it on that page if this one is deleted, and the other page requires work anyway, I'm OK with deleting this one and fixing the other one in parallel, and trying to work in a mention that way.) For those who are interested in this topic, please see Oscar Micheaux or Donald Bogle. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:22, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Another data point (as background): See this one-star review of "Chicago After Dark" in a vintage film forum which calls it "Godawful, and having nothing to do with Chicago..." Cielquiparle (talk) 17:49, 7 July 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 01:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jashimuddin Avenue[edit]

Jashimuddin Avenue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Don't see how a road is notable. Fails WP:GEO and WP:GNG Slywriter (talk) 00:40, 1 July 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 01:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Symons (American football)[edit]

Scott Symons (American football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. An Assistant Coach with all sourcing to his employers Slywriter (talk) 00:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_July_1&oldid=1097577515"