Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 March 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 28 March 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 delete. Policy-based input from established editors makes it clear that Meesho does not meet the guidelines for companies. With regard to the GNG angle, passing mentions especially that are not clearly independent do not really add up to GNG, so this wouldn't pass via either route. Star Mississippi 23:35, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meesho[edit]

Meesho (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)

Lacks reliable media sources. Most of the links provided deal with investment or acquisition deals. And seems like page was created by someone that was affiliated to the company. NancyAggarwal1999 (talk) 09:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.forbesindia.com/article/30-under-30-2018/vidit-aatrey-sanjeev-barnwal-redefining-distribution-with-meesho/49381/1
  2. ^ https://techcrunch.com/2016/08/17/meesho-wants-to-make-selling-through-whatsapp-more-efficient-and-less-painful/
  3. ^ https://www.livemint.com/Companies/yqQRZkZvFAbjX6MHrWZpAP/Meesho-raises-50-million-from-Shunwei-Capital-others-infr.html
    • Response This is a company therefore NCORP applies. None of those references meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. Forbes reference is based entirely on an interview with the founders (a "puff profile") with no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND. Techcrunch comes with a health warning for notability - WP:TECHCRUNCH - and this article is no different. It is another "puff profile" relying entirely on company information or "told me in an interview" content with no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND. Check our how remarkably similar this article is from the previous Forbes article for example. Finally the Livemint reference is based entirely on what "the company said on Tuesday". It's regurgitated/recycled press release material - check out the exact same quotes and largely the exact same information in this from the Economic Times and this in Fashion Network. All fail ORGIND. HighKing++ 12:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and do a lot of cleanup. There is very little independent material about the actual business activity of the company (because articles on this topic are all interviews with company personnel), but there are many sources about numerous founding rounds. Of course, promotional tone will have to go. Anton.bersh (talk) 11:20, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the funding section has too much info and needs to be summarized, but i agree that the company meets notability guidelines. Zeddedm (talk) 23:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was able to find over 20 articles through Wikipedia's library regarding the company's business activity, and here are several of them: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Although I was unable to see the pages, the company is covered on three pages of the 2021 version of International Directory of Company Histories (pages 295-297). This passes WP:GNG. Heartmusic678 (talk) 11:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Firstly, sources provided by GoldMiner24 and Heartmusic678 pretty much clarifies that the page passes WP:GNG. Secondly, yes the funding section requires a clean-up to upright the promotional way it looks. Lastly, I think the company is notable enough to be there on Wikipedia. ManaliJain (talk) 12:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep: Article easily passes WP:BASIC and WP:CORP. Although it needs some brushing to improve neutrality, cursory Google search shows that Meesho is quite notable in the Indian ecommerce space. There are like 7-8 sources that are reliable and independent of the subject. Moreover, it has a unicorn status. To me, this deletion looks like an attack on the company. Adamsamuelwilson (talk) 04:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It must pass WP:ORG, so we should not talk about any other guidelines. 8 Sources are shared in this AFD page.Here we Go...Adgully is not a reliable source. campaignindia is not reliable, not independent, not even in-depth. Similarly ET, mediannews4u, dfupublications are not having any byline (not independent), Techcrunch, Talkmarkets are unreliable sources. Infact, majority of them are not reliable sources, not a single is in-depth source. All 3 sources shared by GoldMiner24 are vague. Forves is not even about the company, other 2 are not considered reliable. Behind the moors (talk) 07:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with Behind the moors. Some of the sources linked here are unusable in general, let alone on a company article. In addition, from the article - TechInAsia is exclusively made up of quotes from founders. Same with techcrunch (from around the same time), but with additional content about business model that repeats company lines. Fortune India is a bit better, having talked to people from outside the company; but even that article suffers from essential facts being sourced to the founders and may only count for partial NORG notability. The rest of the refs are purely routine funding/product announcements. As the company is unlisted, analyst reports are non-existent on public web. Hemantha (talk) 11:13, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. I note editors saying it passes GNG above - that is not the appropriate guidelines, please see WP:SNG (which is a section in GNG)
  • Assuming all the sources are reliable (except if obviously not such as a Blog or social media) and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization - but there's more requirements than that for establishing notability.
  • As per WP:SIRS each reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant, there can be 100 references but for the purposes of establishing notability we only require a minumum of two that each meet the criteria
  • WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content".
  • "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. 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.
Not a single reference either mentioned above or in the article meet the criteria. WP:SERIESA (while an essay) appears to be particularly apt in this case. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 21:43, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The company is mentioned in some of the RS that indicates its notability, passes WP:CORP.ZanciD (talk) 10:59, 28 February 2022 (UTC)·[reply]
  • Keep Meets NCORP with sources like [9] [10] [11] [12]. One of the most downloaded apps in India [13] [14] and globally [15]. Often cited as the "pioneer" of social commerce in India [16] [17], and last valued at $4.9 billion [18], so not a run of the mill startup. M4DU7 (talk) 08:38, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As already mentioned above, the SIRS sections of NCORP says that each reference must meet all the criteria - that includes CORPDEPTH *and* ORGIND. There may also be some confusion over the difference between sources that may be used to support facts/information within an article and the tougher criteria for sources used to establish notability. Just because a source may be used to support a fact/information (passing WP:RS) does not mean it also meets the criteria for establishing notability.
      • This from Forbes India is a standard "puff profile" exhibiting all the usual signs of "describe problem, AHA moment, early struggles, breakthrough, funding, growth and future-hopes" topped off with the obligatory photos. There isn't a single piece of inn-depth "Independent Content" in this article, all of the content relies entirely on information and quotations from the company/founders/funders. Every paragraph includes a quote. Fails WP:ORGIND
      • This from Money Control has a byline of "Moneycontrol learns from sources" and none of the sources providing information are identified. The article relies on 11 or 12 (!!!!) anonymous sources - this is not the basis for any article, this is not reliably sourced information and wouldn't pass the criteria of WP:RS. Cannot be used to establish notability.
      • This from Business Standard is another "puff profile" which relies entirely on information provided by the company/founders. The only "Independent Content" in the article is the "Expert Take" section which falls well short of WP:CORPDEPTH criteria as it merely poses a question and challenge to the topic company in the future, fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH
      • This from India Today is a lead front-of-cover "puff profile" magazine story on the topic company and the founders that relies entirely on information provided by the company/founders. It has no "Independent Content" and fails WP:ORGIND
      • This from Business Standard talks about the app, nothing about the company, fails CORPDEPTH.
      • This from Money Control also talks about the number of downloads of the app, nothing about the company, fails CORPDEPTH
      • This from Business Standard is more of the same, talks about the number of downloads of the app, fails CORPDEPTH
      • Fortune India provides a "puff profile" on the founders/company, same standard format as mentioned above including the obligatory photo, fails ORGIND.
      • This from India Express is a mere mention-in-passing, fails CORPDEPTH (and probably ORGIND)
      • This from Business Standard is a short article (14 sentences) which essentially provides a short intro to the fact that the company had a fresh funding round. Fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.
The test has nothing to do with it being a "run-of-the-mill startup" or a "billion dollar unicorn" - we need to see references that discuss the company in-depth providing independent analysis/investigation/etc *without* relying entirely on repeating/regurgitating innformation provided by the company or being a "puff profile" on the success story. So far everything we've seen has been firmly within the echo chamber of the company. HighKing++ 11:52, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 23:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Meets NCORP, per sources providing by keep voters.Ginbopewz (talk) 11:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request Just a reminder that consensus is not a vote counting exercise and there is very little attempt to find a consensus here, no engagement or debate. There are also a number of inexperienced editors or dormant editors who have suddenly reappeared !voting here who may be less familiar with our guidelines. Pinging some of the Keep !voters GoldMiner24, Anton.bersh, Zeddedm, Heartmusic678, ManaliJain, Adamsamuelwilson, zanciD and M4DU7. to justify their !votes. Some incorrectly used GNG as the guideline - this is a company so NCORP applies. Others say that the sources meet the NCORP criteria for establishing notability. I've provided reasoning above on each reference as to why they fail our NCORP criteria. Nobody has engaged with this analysis to debate it or to attempt to refute it. Ginbopewz says above that it meets NCORP as per the sources but fails to provide any meaningful justification. I've also analysed these very same sources and shown that they fail NCORP - perhaps that editor or some other can point to specific passages in a specific reference that meet NCORP? Can any other editors do the same? Particular attention should be paid to the definition of "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND. HighKing++ 12:12, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I found this Bloomberg Quint article:
  • Sharma, Nishant. "Meesho Is Turning Housewives Into WhatsApp Entrepreneurs". BloombergQuint. Retrieved 2022-03-08.
It has intellectual independence as the "Caution Ahead" section contains independent analysis and doubts about the app. Along with the International Directory of Company Histories Volume 226 reference noted by Heartmusic it may be enough (I also can't read it, but can verify there is an entry, and the directories entries are generally ORGCRIT compliant). But the article is also in a poor state so I'm not inclined to cast a hard vote. Jumpytoo Talk 07:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Response Except the "Caution Ahead" section contains no in-depth information on the company. Also there really isn't any "independent analysis" worth shaking a stick at as you've stated. At best maybe there's a single sentence? So long as nobody figures out that those sentences simply echo the quotes from affiliated persons.... But I take your point on the book, could be a good reference (and most likely is) although we need multiple references. HighKing++ 15:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your analysis of the Bloomberg piece. There is 5 paragraphs of independent & in-depth coverage of the app by expressing concerns about how the app is vulnerable to competition though aggressive expansion into underserved regions and that the quality of the products of poor impacting sellers earnings, which is supported by information from Priyanka who is a Meesho seller and two expert analysts: Ankur Pahwa from Ernst & Young, Satish Meena from Forrester Research. I found no evidence either of the expert analysts or their companies have ties to Meesho, and the Meesho seller is only cited to support doubts about the app so I consider her an independent source. I understand that usually company =/= it's products but here Meesho is the companies only product so I consider them the same entity. The article could be converted into one about the app through normal editing. Jumpytoo Talk 19:04, 8 March 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! 05:49, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tribute (website)[edit]

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

Per WP:NOT § INTERNET we observe that “Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should also describe the site in an encyclopedic manner. The article furthermore is not discussed in in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Furthermore the website fails to satisfy WP:WEBCRIT. A before search turns up no reliable sources, the sources observed are either user generated, self published, or sources with no reputation for fact checking. Note that the article doubles as both a website and an organization. A clear WP:NCORP fail as well. Celestina007 (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It looks like the page has substantial coverage in reliable sources based on the page's references. The features in The New Yorker,[19] and Inc.,[20] and decent amount of coverage in NPR,[21] seem like they meet WP:GNG. I can't see anywhere that they're user generated or self published. It looks like they're regular staff articles. (Edit: Adding New York Daily News article([22]) BuySomeApples (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I’m afraid I don’t see where WP:SIGCOV is met, the first source isn’t discussing the website in itself thus SIGCOV isn’t met. The second source is literally not loading. The third source isn’t even about the website, literally, it however mentions them but it relies on the organization see a portion of the source “ Tribute says it was the first, starting in 2015. Its prices range from $29 for a DIY version to $100 for the full-service "concierge" option, which includes all the editing, plus perks like email reminders for contributors if the sender sets a deadline” That is blatant advertising/ relying on a source not independent of organization thus can’t be counted as a reliable piece. See WP:ORGIND & WP:COISOURCE. To further expatiate on this point, I find them adverting(spamming?) and track them down to a Nigerian website (Nairaland) (blacklisted here) advertising their services. There is literally no source (independent) that discusses the website in accordance to what is contained in WP:WEBCRIT. I’m not seeing SIGCOV in reliable pieces, for example in the article I note this source which has the byline as the name of the source, this is either an op-ed (guest editor) or an opinion piece by the Editorial either way, we do not put credence to opinion pieces nor op-Ed’s not properly attributed, I’m sorry but there are no reliable pieces that discuss this website. Celestina007 (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm, the first source is about the founder founding the company, which is close enough for me tbh since the page is about both the website and the company. The second one loads fine for me? See if the archived version works better. The majority of the third article is about the site, but I get what you mean about the writer sourcing info directly from the company. Do you mean that you found the company spamming on a Nigerian website or the editor who made the page? If it looked like the company I wonder if that was some kind of scam. BuySomeApples (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi there, I'm the creator of the page and have reviewed your helpful comments. I do understand the concern over the sources in question, as they reference the company and founders more so than the website itself. I have replaced the first and third sources with sources that directly discuss the website itself with more in-depth coverage. As for the mention of the Nigerian website spam, that is something that I'm completely unaware of and was not my intention to use any blacklisted sources. Can you please clarify this? Thank you and please let me know of any other concerns that can be addressed in order to avoid deletion.Hattiedog (talk) 00:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG with reliable sources indicated by BuySomeApples. ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 04:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 23:27, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, the article could use some improvement, but WP:GNG is met, and a merely imperfect article doesn't require deletion. Yitz (talk) 23:54, 1 March 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! 05:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indoor antenna[edit]

Indoor antenna (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)

Sad little article, effectively unsourced and much better though still unsourced coverage in the main article, Television antenna. delete this, redirect to main article. Roxy the dog. wooF 20:16, 22 February 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 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreement with Ost316, in that a better term may be more helpful to users who are looking for information about indoor antennas. 71.179.1.78 (talk) 14:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Redirecting to Television antenna is not a suitable solution since indoor antennas for radio reception also exist, particularly the folded dipole constructed from twin-lead [23] which can be nailed to a skirting board. Particular topics can be redirected to a more general one, but we shouldn't redirect a general topic to a particular one. SpinningSpark 20:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BEFORE. Being a stub isn't a good reason to delete. Bearian (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:SIGCOV per SpinningSpark's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 01:14, 5 March 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) 22:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trusted time[edit]

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

Article does not have any references since 2007. I've tried to find some, and "Trusted Time" does not seem to be a widely used technical term. You see it appearing in phrases like "a trusted time stamp", meaning a time stamp that is trusted. The only place I have seen "Trusted Time" used as a phrase directly, is in an English translation of a Chinese document. (I also know something about the technical topic of NTP mentioned on the page, and the text about NTP does not really seem to make sense.) David Malone (talk) 15:01, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I found an encyclopaedia with a "trusted time" entry: ISBN 9781599043869 page 700. However, that encyclopaedia doesn't match the load of old hooey in this article, including the risible nonsense about the Freedom of Information Act and time sources. That encyclopaedia article cites doi:10.4018/978-1-59140-553-5.ch054 as its source and István Mezgar's original article matches it pretty much word-for-word. But no-one else independently documents (rather than just plain copies, as the IGI encyclopaedia, from an author with a PhD in business administration, does) Mezgar's concept. So this article as it stands is unverifiable, and a wholly rewritten article based upon Mezgar would not be an idea that has actually escaped Mezgar and been adopted by other people. This fails both the verifiability and the no original research policies. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 23:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Trusted time is an important issue and is disussed in numerous sources in relation to networks (for example [24]), cryptography (for example [25]), and navigation (for example [26]). I don't know whether Uncle G is right about the sentence on Freedom of Information Act and liability, but it is certainly true that there are regulatory issues surrounding trusted time in some jurisdictions (see [27]) and the sentence is easy enough to remove if we don't like it. Deletion is not cleanup. SpinningSpark 08:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first paper by Daryl only uses the phrase "Trusted Time" in the title to mean time that is trusted, rather than a specific term. The word trusted only appears once in the actual body paper, in a generic sense. The second paper by the FAA only uses the phrase "trusted time" one in the paper, again not to mean any specific technical term, but again, time which is trusted. The book only seems to use the phrase "trusted time stamp", in a general sense, rather than a specific technical term. (When the book talks about standard technical phrases, it seems to uses caps, like Trusted Computing Module or Trusted Third Parties). So, I don't think any of these show it is a standard concept worth documenting. David Malone (talk) 10:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I knew that someone would do the phrase search without looking at the following word. For shame! One of your sources is actually about Position, Navigation, and Timing (which is in its title, no less!) and happens to use the phrase "trusted time synchronization" once in the entire document. Another says "trusted time server", i.e. an NTP server that is trusted. Ironically, one only has to read as far as the second section of your "regulatory issues" paper, past the background section on Coordinated Universal Time and International Atomic Time, to find that it is about "Digital time stamps", i.e. trusted timestamps. And the one that only matches the "Toward Trusted Time" title of the paper is in fact about the error rates of NTP stratum 0 servers, which is of course grist for the mill in Network Time Protocol#Clock strata. Uncle G (talk) 11:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • This article is about trusted time sources. The Cao and Veitch paper examines whether NTP Stratum 1 timeservers are reliable. How is that not about this topic? David Malone, I don't care how many times the paper uses the phrase and a strict technical definition of a topic is not necessary for a Wikipedia article. The essential requirement is that the paper is about the topic which I would argue it is. I don't know what FAA source you are referring to; my second source is the The Kang et al. source. This makes it clear that trusted time is key to their methodology and they repeatedly discuss trusted time servers. Which are trusted time sources. Uncle G, I don't understand why I should be ashamed of offering a paper with "Position, Navigation, and Timing" in its title. The full title is "Time Source Options for Alternate Positioning Navigation and Timing". That's exactly what I said the paper was about; the importance of time sources in navigation. SpinningSpark 11:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • The paper I referred to as FAA is "Time Source Options for Alternate Positioning Navigation and Timing (APNT)" - it's on the FAA website, and is your third reference. Sorry for not being clearer. Personally, I am not convinced these papers make a good case for the existence of this article. There are already pages on NTP and Time Servers and the timescales that they measure agains such as UTC and TAI. There are also pages on protocols that issue trusted timestamps and define exactly what a trusted timestamp means in this sense. You could propose a notion of trusted time that combined all these notions, but that would seem to count as original research. David Malone (talk)
          • The need for a trusted source of absolute time in navigation is nothing new. It goes all the way back to the story of longitude and chronometers – three centuries back. This is a subject whole libraries of stuff have been written about. Timing over internet is one solution discussed in the paper I provided, so there is at least some sourced overlap of the navigation and network time topics. So no, I don't agree that it is OR to treat them in the same article. SpinningSpark 17:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've never heard that called trusted time - that's UT0, UT1, UTC and their relationship to earth orientation. The issue there is mainly the accuracy of the time source, clock and time transfer, not trust. I have quite a number of books on the topic! I think we'll have to agree to differ and get some other opinions. David Malone (talk) 18:48, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There don't seem to be any (significant) sources for this concept. The closest perhaps is the Cao and Veitch article, and although there are numerous controlled and uncontrolled keywords and subjects that have been assigned to that article, "trusted time" is not among them. It looks to me like the article on ANSI ASC X9.95 Standard covers this nicely, and that we don't have sources for a stand-alone article. Lamona (talk) 03:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 23:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This page has been tagged for NO SOURCES for a dozen years. There's a discussion above about sources, none of which have been applied to the page. None of the sources discussed seem to directly detail the subject. A reasonable search finds nothing substantive. This article may be about a notable subject but we have no sources from which to determine this. Failing ANY sourcing, delete. BusterD (talk) 19:41, 8 March 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) 22:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maris Vijay[edit]

Maris Vijay (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)

sourced entirely to paid for spam/black hat seo - non-notable vanity spam and contributor pieces. CUPIDICAE💕 18:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Nothing here approaching direct detailing by RS. Despite the nattering of likely paid or connected contributors, this fails GNG and ANYBIO. BusterD (talk) 19:58, 8 March 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. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yoram Symons[edit]

Yoram Symons (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:BIO. No significant coverage. 2 of the sources are primary. LibStar (talk) 23:15, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jagvir Goyal[edit]

Jagvir Goyal (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 didn’t find any coverage in reputed websites that are written about him. Hindustan times article is written by himself only.person who created this only created this page and never ever edited any other page at all! Laptopinmyhands (talk) 23:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 1 March 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 Nicki Minaj#Fragrances. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Friday (fragrance)[edit]

Pink Friday (fragrance) (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 this fails WP:GNG/ Much of the coverage is primary sources like twitter or retail sources like Amazon. When that is removed, not sure what purpose the page has other than promoting the project and being largely promotional. Artists release endorsed products - don't see anything particularly noteworthy here that couldn't exist at the artist's page. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 23:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Nicki Minaj#Fragrances. The fragrance is not independently notable, but this is a plausible search term. ✗plicit 01:40, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Nicki Minaj#Fragrances. Insufficient sourcing to warrant own article. Minaj's first signature fragrance, material certainly can populate the relevant section of the BLP. BusterD (talk) 20:01, 8 March 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! 05:40, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Reclosing this case after mistakenly closing it "Soft delete". This was not appropriate so I have now closed it as a straight "Delete". Liz Read! Talk! 15:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

V. C. Agrawal[edit]

AfDs for this article:
V. C. Agrawal (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 don’t think he started any of what he is director etc of. This way, there are so many big companies. All big companies leaders are not notable. Even if this person would have started something of their own, then also they should not be automatically notable. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 23:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 1 March 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 01:41, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

T. Chitty Babu[edit]

T. Chitty Babu (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)

All news about their company and not exactly them. News about company also look like regular announcement. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 1 March 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 01:42, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Point of View (non-governmental organisation)[edit]

Point of View (non-governmental organisation) (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 run by important and notable people. But I feel there is not enough coverage of their own work. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 23:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Filadelfia Bible College, Udaipur[edit]

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

Not a notable educational institute. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 23:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Question is not if they are significant. Question is if they are notable for wiki policies. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 14:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete there's a difference between something being "significant" and being "notable." In this case the college might be the former, and that's a pretty strong "might be", but it clearly isn't the later. So there's zero reason to have an article about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:04, 8 March 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 01:43, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

S.P.U. College, Falna[edit]

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

Not a notable educational institute. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 23:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There are more sources when you search for the full name of the college: "Shri Parshwanath Ummed college", but they are mostly databases of colleges and primary sources. Doesn't meet WP:NSCHOOL. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:51, 4 March 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 23:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Society for Exact Philosophy[edit]

Society for Exact Philosophy (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)

Attempts to find independent reliable sources yields only trivial mentions (mostly along the lines of "this paper was first presented at the nth annual meeting of the Society for Exact Philosophy"). The only exception that I could find which provided in-depth independent coverage of the society is "The Society for Exact Philosophy" by Francis Jetfry Pelletier in Ruch Filozoficzny. However, one article is not in-depth coverage by multiple independent, reliable sources, which is the requirement set by WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Alduin2000 (talk) 23:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. I find (as I often do) Uncle G's argument persuasive. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Etna, Utah[edit]

Etna, Utah (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)

By and large the small town articles I've looked at thus far in Utah are downright paragons, but there are a some questionable ones. In this case the most I can determine was that there was a post office here, and that as a larger locale it covers a mining district. At the location, though, I find nothing. Mangoe (talk) 01:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I went through my usual methodology on this one. We need a source to tell us what this was, because "unincorporated community" is Wikipedia's information-free cop-out from the GNIS's "populated place". Lippincott's gazetteer has nothing. The relevant Arcadia Publishing was Topping & Ferguson 2009 which also had nothing. Finally I found Van Cott 1990, p. 131 which puts the lie to "is an unincorporated community". What it was, and is not now, was a post-office that postmaster Charlie Morris named after Etna Creek. And — lo! — there it is, in the 1930 United States Official Postal Guide. And the GNIS has it under "Etna Creek" as "stream". Yes, you may well find reservoirs and fishing on a creek.

    Checking the original 1937 History of Box Creek rather than the derivative 1996 one, the fact that this is a creek becomes glaringly evident. Yes, it was known as West Fork because that's actually a common U.S. name of a tributary of a creek before it gets its own name. Unfortunately for the "but school district!" argument, the name of the area is actually right there on page 297, immediately above the sentence talking about Etna Creek and the school. It says Grouse Creek, the creek that Etna Creek is a west fork of.

    • Topping, Gary; Ferguson, Melissa Coy (2009). Salt Lake City, 1890–1930. Arcadia Publishing. ISBN 9780738570747.
    • Van Cott, John W. (1990). "Etna". Utah Place Names: A Comprehensive Guide to the Origins of Geographic Names : a Compilation. University of Utah Press. ISBN 9780874803457.
    • Walker Forsgren, Lydia (1937). "Grouse Creek". History of Box Elder County. Box Elder County Daughters of the Pioneers.
  • Uncle G (talk) 12:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 18:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reviewing the sources we have:
  • The 1996 history gives clear coverage of a settlement but this is the only source produced that does. Without legal recognition for a GEOLAND#1 pass I would typically be looking for at least one more source, but the description of the 1996 history is clear enough that I'd be inclined to give the benefit of the doubt. The problem is that Uncle G's research cast doubt on this history as the 1937 history (which I don't have access to but they do) does not appear to describe the same thing. Without any actual significant reliable coverage I'm leaning delete on this one. For the avoidance of doubt post offices and schools are not automatically notable so simply showing that there was a post office or school (which can be located anywhere, including outside communities) does not make this notable. FOARP (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • My problem with the 1996 history is that having read the earlier stuff, it is quite clearly a conflation of all of the earlier stuff, that doesn't cite its sources. The more contemporary sources indicate that Grouse Creek was considered the overall area, with Etna Creek part of it, and Etna the "populated place" per the GNIS was in fact the Etna post-office, which is a building and makes something a "populated place". (GNIS phase 1 didn't really use the "post office" feature class, because the methodology didn't involve consulting the sort of things that would say exactly what the place was. Phase 1 was all about indexing the maps. If at least one building was there, it was "populated place".) Uncle G (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Uncle G is usually right about everything and it warms my heart to see them active again but I honestly can’t work out if they want to keep or delete this page, so a further relist for them to clarify their vote or others to chime in will definitely provide more chance of consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 22:17, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I appreciate the sentiment, but I also appreciate others double-checking the research. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 00:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a populated place. No sign of notability under GNG or any applicable SNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:38, 2 March 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! 22:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Band Pacino[edit]

Band Pacino (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)

There is no WP:RS about him. Juggyevil (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Multiply Group[edit]

Multiply Group (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)

Hard to locate the references for it to pass WP:ORG. Just acquisition and investment news. Juggyevil (talk) 21:52, 1 March 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! 22:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OpenOcean[edit]

AfDs for this article:
OpenOcean (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)

Hard to locate the references for it to pass WP:ORG. Juggyevil (talk) 21:48, 1 March 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! 22:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aamir Rafiq (actor)[edit]

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

Not a notable actor. Fails WP:NACTOR. I can't see lead roles or any significant work. Juggyevil (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have not paid for article dear Ravensfire i just tried my best to put all reliable source but it seems that suspision is a big issue on article made through afd editors are not searching for the article sources on google i think just giving there feedback the actor did lead roles in the project and did prominent characters in tv & films and have relevant media source on main stream media and the article on pinkvilla and its content from the heading to the last is different that why i used that for reference and pinkvilla is a mainstream media of bollywood film industry they only publish article for notable actors not for everyone i have search google news about the aamir rafiq actor its quite decent and cover by good news channel of tv and film industry he have been part of big bollywood films and did good character — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odlwcsu (talk • contribs) 15:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC) Keep: i believe that article has enough news sources on reliable main stream media which easily qualify {wp:actor} category and notability [1][2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odlwcsu (talk • contribs) 16:43, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.pinkvilla.com/tv/news-gossip/jhansi-ki-rani-fame-aamir-rafiq-speaks-portraying-negative-characters-i-am-happy-be-typecast-764861%3famp
  2. ^ https://m.timesofindia.com/tv/news/hindi/i-get-inspired-to-do-good-from-my-negative-roles-says-actor-aamir-rafiq/amp_articleshow/83238221.cms

I have been gone through various deleted projects there is a project name ahan shetty which was considered for deletion and deleted by raising he is not a known actor and not meet wp actor criteria ,he was lead actor actor in tadaap ,has various news on unlimited main stream media ,i guess no body is google about the ref and dod not add any ref hence the articke was deleted ,now i am coming to my point ,Aamir Rafiq who is famour for jhansi ki rani ,paramavtaar shri krishna ,his name in the news for these projects over and over ,those character was much liked my audience that is why i guess media news publish about him,on times of india ,pinkvilaa ,tellychakkar ,bombay times ,spotboye and many more ,the actor was seen with akshay kumar in fortune oil add and also on the cover with him on print for the same add, he has been seen in jammu & kashmir tvc which was the biggest budget add ,the actor doing projects on lead roles and parallel ,still he not a notable actor,aamir rafiq has verified social media account facebook page and verified amazon influencer,you cannot get verify untill your a notable enough ,the actor been seen doing paid partnership adds with addidas ,marks&spencers,veet,collaoborate with sarnaya umakanthan for promitimg her novel one day life will change on paid partnership on instagram. _aamir_rafiq , if hes doing alot of main stream work and did film with national and international director rupesh paul ,and did a prominent character in rocketry the nambi effect ,in penalty as cameo ,and featured in show khul ja sim sim with aman verma , and who has been the show stopper for the biggest show of nesco for brand RUSK india. Who have numerous reference, then how he fails the wp criteria and an notable criteria i strongly believe that this article should not be deleted by audience, Keep this article !.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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! 22:13, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Metas Opas-iamkajorn[edit]

Metas Opas-iamkajorn (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 a notable actor. Fails WP:NACTOR Juggyevil (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Delete is solution here. 1st neither the series is notable till now, 2nd even if it is then he needs to be a lead actor in mulitiple series of movies. Juggyevil (talk) 14:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:TOOSOON at best, and possibly an A7-speedy deletion candidate as the article stands now. No better sources found. --Finngall talk 17:12, 3 March 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! 22:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jade Weber[edit]

Jade Weber (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 notability criteria. All unreliable sources or the interview. Juggyevil (talk) 20:55, 1 March 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. Existing !deletes here and WP:G5, creation by WP:SOCK who was previously indef blocked. —Bagumba (talk) 05:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tanjib Sarowar[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Tanjib Sarowar (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:NMUSIC, WP:GNG. Not a notable muscian. Juggyevil (talk) 20:28, 1 March 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 G4 by User:Liz. (non-admin closure) Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indrajeet Bose[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Indrajeet Bose (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 actor, fails GNG, WP:NACTOR. The page is repeatedly created. Behind the moors (talk) 19:30, 1 March 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! 22:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lorraine C. Ladish[edit]

Lorraine C. Ladish (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 autobiography by Lcladish13 (talk · contribs) (a.k.a. Lcladish (talk · contribs), and I suspect also Thebestwriter13 (talk · contribs) and Penelope1313 (talk · contribs) in the years since). I find no sources not written by the article subject xyrself, and the fact that I found someone disputing the truth of Unialphabet (AfD discussion) back in 2008, having tested out what Wikipedia said on the subject, leads to accuracy worries about the information here, as they were written by the same person, alongside Delfin Carbonell Basset (AfD discussion) who is claimed to be an immediate family member of this person on this person's autobiography elsewhere on the WWW.

Proposed deletion of the autobiography was challenged by the autobiographer in 2006.

Uncle G (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Spain. Shellwood (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Florida and Pennsylvania. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:16, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't find anything about her in either Gnews or the NYT, although there are several hits on her name, not sure how many are this person Oaktree b (talk) 20:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete That a page so lacking in any sources has survived for 16 years is a mark against Wikipedia. The only listed source is a book written by the subject. We need sources created by others saying something about those we have articles on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:40, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One self-sourced autobiography....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:48, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a notable figure, plus COI concerns. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 19:14, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I also currently live in Sarasota so I checked our local library catalog as well as some other sources and found nothing that would signify this person as notable. Amscheip (talk) 21:17, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Mounted Carabiniers (France). The arguments against keeping are stronger. The first "keep" argues that certain military units are inherently notable, which is contrary to applicable guidelines. The second "keep" argues that there are sources, but does not react to questions about the pertinence of these sources. Sandstein 07:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1st Carabinier Regiment[edit]

AfDs for this article:
1st Carabinier Regiment (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)
Advanced search for: 
"1er régiment de carabiniers"
In books/documents 
Google Books  · Questia
Internet Archive  · WorldCat
In the news 
Google News: recent  · archives

Questia  · New York Times
Los Angeles Times
Wall Street Journal · Washington Post
Financial Times · BBC News
The Age · The Hindu
News Limited · Fairfax Media

In academic/legal journals 
and reference works 
Google Scholar: academic  · legal

Microsoft Academic: new  · original
Oxford Reference  · JSTOR
PUBMED Central  · Questia
HighBeam  · Internet Archive

World Wide Web pages 
Google Web Search  · Advanced Search
Searx 1  · 2  · 3  · 4
Bing  · DuckDuckGo  · Startpage
Yahoo · Yandex · Gigablast
Images (free) 
Google  · Flickr
More 
Wikipedia Free English newspaper sources
The Wikipedia Library

WP:GNG. I'm only able to find one secondary source that mentions the 1st Carabinier Regiment, which is just a Daily Mail article about a piece of scratched armor belonging to a soldier of this regiment. BurritoQuesadilla (talk) 17:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and France. Shellwood (talk) 17:50, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might help to search for the correct French spelling, which is régiment de carabiniers. Uncle G (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I looked over in Gallica at BNF.fr for "1er régiment de carabiniers"; there are hits for several units, not sure how detailed each is. Napoleonic cavalry units are not my area of study. The unit exists, it would take a bit of digging to make an article. The Fr wiki article is about as poorly-sourced as this one is. Oaktree b (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have always considered that battalion-sized units and above are notable. This is WP:COMMONSENSE and its principle is laid down at WP:MILUNIT. There are easily enough sources to prove that this regiment existed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Plus see the previous AfD discussion re sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh thanks. I was unaware of that WP:MILUNIT. Two questions-- first of all, how do I withdraw an AFD? Second, is there an available list of notability guidelines for specific subjects? BurritoQuesadilla (talk) 17:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • MILUNIT is a Wikiproject essay not a guideline. The actual guidelines are on Template:Notability guide. There is no basis for automatic notability for all such organizational units of any military. They are not exempt from our standard expections of significant coverage. Reywas92Talk 19:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Mounted Carabiniers (France) along with 2nd Carabinier Regiment (France) per WP:NOPAGE, without prejudice; I don't see the need for separate articles without significant coverage establishing notability and the need for a stand-alone article. Reywas92Talk 19:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Reywas92 unless actual useful sources can be identified. The previous AfD 5+ years ago essentially turned around a "well surely there are sources if someone would just look for them" argument. Given that those sources have not materialized in 5+ years, we must assume they don't exist. Any arguments to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS are not convincing. As for WP:MILUNIT, it is an essay that explicitly states "The key to determining notability is ultimately coverage in independent sources per the general notability guideline" and "[The] presumption of notability for a military unit or formation depends wholly on the existence of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." I'll gladly change my !vote if someone can actually identify the sources needed to establish WP:SIGCOV, but vague claims along the lines of "French Napoleonic regiments will undoubtedly have sources" (as in the last AfD) will not cut it. -Ljleppan (talk) 08:02, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Not going to give a full review yet, but I'm starting to lean keep. There were only two regiments, and the premier régiment de carabiniers fought at Austerlitz, Friedland, Eckmühl, Wagram and Waterloo, which by itself should warrant at least some attention from military historians. I looked around a bit, and sources abound: 1814 [29], 1877 [30] (digitized), 1896 [pp.155-189], and going forward. I'm fairly sure that they also get coverage in English-language military history books, if one were to look. Pilaz (talk) 16:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are secondary sources, contemporary and modern. Emir Bukhari's Napoleon's Cuirassiers and Carabiniers and Ronald Pawly's Napoleon’s Carabiniers are just two of the sources in English. Atchom (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Atchom: could you describe what those sources say about the 1st Carabinier Regiment in specific? Based on Amazon previews, both appear to very short books (<50 pages). A Google Books search of Napoleon's Carabiniers for the keyword "1st" produces only rather passing mentions such as "the 2nd Cavalry Corps was deployed in column of regiments, with 1st Carabiniers in front." and "The 1st Regt suffered severe casualties (12 officers and 104 troopers); the 2nd Regt...". Similarly, looking at the index of Napoleon's Cuirassiers and Carabiniers in Amazon (assuming I'm interpreting the Index correctly), it seems that the 1st in specific is only indexed to images rather than text. I'm sure these would be wonderful sources for an article about the carabiniers in general, but this discussion is about whether the 1st regiment in specific should be a separate, dedicated, article. -Ljleppan (talk) 05:23, 9 March 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! 22:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ignacio Giampaoli[edit]

Ignacio Giampaoli (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)

Footballer who fails WP:FOOTY, has never played in a WP:FPL, only in low-level non-pro leages. Discussion from WP:FOOTBALL Talk RedPatch (talk) 17:08, 1 March 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 G5 by Bbb23.(non-admin closure) AAhap36 (talk • contribs) 06:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sunny Prajapati[edit]

Sunny Prajapati (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)

Sunny Prajapati

This is an autobiography of a non-notable filmmaker. It has been reference-bombed with endnotes, but does not have any of the footnotes that are required for a biography of a living person. A previous version of this autobiography has been deleted as G11, spam. A draft version, Draft:Sunny Prajapati, has been submitted and declined four times, and this is essentially the same as the draft. An article should speak for itself, and this one does not establish a reason why the subject is biographically notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just changed it to a redirect back to draft and tagged it for deletion as WP:IAR. As it is though, this article is a SPEEDY DELETE - nothing to support notability, no good sources and the draft declined multiple times. Ravensfire (talk) 17:22, 1 March 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. There isn't anything suitable to merge due to the sourcing issues, however if Ost or another editor would like to redirect, there's no issue there. Star Mississippi 03:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Varanasi City Police Commissionerate[edit]

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

Not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show it passes either WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH. Onel5969 TT me 17:03, 1 March 2022 (UTC) I have done all the formalities now I think it is ready to a page[reply]

  • Delete - per WP:CORPDEPTH, not enough coverage in news, survey, discussions, analysis, or evaluation of the organization. The current page looks like a brochure. The only news source talks about implementation the commissionerate in Varanasi, which is the basis of the article title. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:39, 3 March 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! 22:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gowrishankar SRG[edit]

Gowrishankar SRG (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 assistant director, no meaningful coverage. CUPIDICAE💕 17:03, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no claim to notability, neither WP:CREATIVE nor WP:GNG is met, and there is a pretty strong feeling of UPE coming off this draft. This has been declined in AfC, as Draft:Gowrishankar srg and Draft:Gowrishankarsrg, and the draft creator has moved several drafts about this person to mainspace – this version was actually created by another user (who has no other edits) and then moved to mainspace by the same user who has been promoting Gowrishankar SRG on Wikipedia since September last year. --bonadea contributions talk 17:52, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See also the deletion log of Gowrishankar srg, and note that the draft creator (Sspatilkea) is now moving the article around to different spellings (currently it's Gowrishikar SRG), in a dance that's pretty confusing for my poor brain. When this is deleted, it may be a good idea to salt all titles created by Sspatilkea. --bonadea contributions talk 18:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt: Editor behaviour means salting is reasonable assuming this WP:BIO failure is deleted. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 18:03, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think he meets WP:NACTOR since he hasn't had significant roles in multiple notable films. I also don't think he meets WP:GNG since the sources mention him but do not provide info of significant depth. I don't mind if a draft remains in Draft space (you never know) as long as, obviously, it's one draft and not multiple drafts about the same actor. Pichpich (talk) 22:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom, fails WP:ENT and WP:GNG. ManaliJain (talk) 11:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt all titles per above. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:31, 8 March 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 01:44, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Yan – Quick & Easy[edit]

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

Article about a television cooking show, not properly sourced as passing WP:TVSHOW. The notability test for television shows is not automatically passed just because the show existed, but requires WP:GNG-worthy coverage about the show in sources independent of itself to externally validate its significance -- but the only source here is the host's own primary source website about himself, which fails to adequately verify the existence of this show at all: it (promotionally) highlights a different show title, with absolutely no overlap of information with this article to verify whether that other show was this show by an alternate title or something completely different. And meanwhile, I can easily verify that the host published a cookbook with this title, but apart from brief namechecks in coverage of the cookbook that it was a tie-in to "his PBS series" (thus still not really answering the question of whether it was the same thing as Martin Yan's Chinatown or not), I can find no coverage whatsoever of the series as a series -- including a total inability to verify the claim that it was a Canadian production. I'm certainly willing to withdraw this if somebody's willing to tackle turning it into an article about the cookbook, but this isn't establishing the notability of a television series at all and I can't find anything else that does. Bearcat (talk) 05:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bbb23 (talk) 14:47, 1 March 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! 05:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Dillon (late 20th century screenwriter)[edit]

Robert Dillon (late 20th century screenwriter) (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)

Unable to find evidence of notability after a quick search. Cited references appear to be inaccessible/dead. Headphase (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:41, 1 March 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 deleted as a blatant hoax that should never have moved into mainspace in the first place. Mackensen (talk) 12:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Illinois Northern Railroad[edit]

Illinois Northern Railroad (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)

"Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed" Moon Joon (talk) 13:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked and can not find any RS that this railroad has ever existed. The reference first used ("See American Shortline railway Guide (break) Greenburg Pub, May 1996 ISBN-10: 0890242909", later improved including an ISBN-13) was printed in 1996 and the company was formed in 1998 according to the article. It can tell background on mergers and spinning off shortlines, what locos shortlines liked, and some operations, but none can relate directly to this railroad.

The outside link "www(dot)inrail(dot)com/" is now a Russian WordPress site, who knows what it was back then? WordPress itself is a blog site and you would have to go at least one level lower to get any RS.

There is no reporting mark "INRR" as stated in the first line. Googling "Illinois Northern Railroad" gets hits for a switching line in SW Chicago associated with International Harvester. The only hit to this railroad is its article. Google images show no photos of any of its locos and railfans take pictures and talk about anything.

A "trains" person may know/care: Does the EJ&E line from Plainfield SSW match the description? Could this be mixed up with the Illinois Railway? Could this be a paper company or a plan that never happened? How could the B&OCT fit in?

At the time of the creator's (notified) last edit the article had no RS for any fact of this railroad. All edits after may be GF efforts to fix the article's form without checking its accuracy. Thank you. Moon Joon (talk) 14:16, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • (edit added disclosure: I created Illinois Northern Railroad (1901-1975) Moon Joon (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Railway buff here, I'm not showing they exist on a map from the Illinois Dept of Transportation, circa 2018 [31]. A former railroad with the same name DID exist, but they went out of business. Google doesn't show much else... I'm thinking they might have been trying to restart the RR when the article was created? Who knows. I found a facebook group post about it, a new company leased part of the line (which was only two or three miles to begin with), so there might have been some attempt to note that as an article here.[ https://www.facebook.com/groups/ILLRRHISTORYBUFFS/permalink/3279368642289279/] Oaktree b (talk) 14:48, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • An alternative hypothesis is that the article creator got the dates wrong, but checking the book I'm not finding any evidence that it supports the existence of any such railway company at any date. Everything that I find elsewhere comes back to the nominator's Illinois Northern Railroad (1901-1975) instead. This is not verifiable from the sources cited and not verifiable from any source that I can find. Uncle G (talk) 15:15, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an apparent hoax. Absolutely nothing about this article is verifiable; "Lincolnville, Illinois" doesn't exist, and the supposed website was an unrelated company. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:45, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. I've had a look through the history of the Inrail website on archive.org and it has always been a website design company specialising in railroad-related websites. Neither the earliest (August 2000) nor latest (March 2005) captures of the links page to sites they have designed mention anything in Illinois Thryduulf (talk) 22:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For what it's worth, I own the Edward A. Lewis book that's in the references, so I took a look in it and there's no mention of this supposed railroad. Railserve's very extensive reporting marks list [32] lists no entry under INRR, which the article claims is assigned to the subject of the article. This is a clear hoax. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Does not meet notability. Gusfriend (talk) 07:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article fails our hoax guidlines. There isn't a place called "Lincolnville" in Illinois, trust me, I have been in Illinois and no such place exists. Also the railroad, as far as I know, this is just a hoax to fool people.Felicia (talk) 00:21, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Football in India#Cup competitions. valid ATD. Solves to the lack of mention, and putting content where reader may be searching. Star Mississippi 03:07, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lal Bahadur Shastri Cup[edit]

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

Has been tagged for months regarding notability by Shirt58, without seeing any additional information added to bolster notability. Current sourcing is simply either stats pages or a routine blurb about the 2006 match (one source doesn't even mention the tournament). Searches did not turn up any in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 11:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Err how about we simply add the mention... GiantSnowman 17:44, 6 March 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 13:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chi Nguyen[edit]

Chi Nguyen (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)

Can't find enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable secondary sources to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 13:06, 1 March 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 13:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fatih Başköy[edit]

Fatih Başköy (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)

Another junior wrestler who does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSPORTS. Onel5969 TT me 13:04, 1 March 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. Tipping away from the merges is the lack of consensus there as to how much should be merged, and if that would be undue in the article as well. Star Mississippi 03:12, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abingdon School controversies[edit]

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

The subject of controversies at Abingdon School does not appear to be notable. I did some Google searches and only found routine incidents. Devoting an article to these incidents gives them WP:UNDUE weight. The only similar article about a school I could find was Eton College controversies and Eton College is much better known and thus likely to be more controversial. I believe that these reasons justify deletion rather than redirection. The article was proposed for deletion on 16 February 2022 but this was reverted. TSventon (talk) 09:43, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to Abingdon School, if any content is worth keeping. Ajf773 (talk) 10:21, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Agree that the article gives WP:UNDUE weight. Should be merged to Abingdon School. GoldMiner24 Talk 12:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge taking care to avoid giving undue weight to negatives in the school's article. Cataloguing everything that's gone wrong over two decades without balancing it with anything that went well is a total abuse of good balance. There is no justification for a controversy article like this, unless a school's main article has become so huge that it needs to be separated into multiple mini-articles about each aspect of it. Eton might qualify, this school definitely does not. Elemimele (talk) 14:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable, a few isolated incidents in the last few decades do not constitute worthwhile comment. Articles are supposed to encyclopedic and the danger of adding this information to Wikipedia is turning it into a tabloid. ApricotFoot (talk) 11:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this isn't notable enough on it's own to justify a separate article from the school. I don't think it's worth merging either. Wikipedia isn't a tabloid and it's not like someone can't pretty easily just copy over what little information is worth saving if there is any to the main article. In the meantime, there's reason to keep the edit history since the article is only a week old and has only been edited by one person. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:28, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Delete This isn’t notable enough to justify its own article, and as others have said it’s WP:UNDUE. Any relevant information should be merged, and the rest deleted.GeekBurst (talk) 16:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Poor article. Not worth keeping, doesn't add anything to Wikipedia. Johnny2hats2 (talk) 11:55, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article has multiple issues and article content fails Wikipedia:SBST, WP:UNDUE and is questionable in other areas too. Pipesmoking Legend (talk) 10:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Not a notable topic enough to have an article on its own and I don’t think merge would be a good idea. Alex-h (talk) 17:06, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "'Merge"' : I agree with GeekBurst, this article should be merged with the Abingdon School article as not only their isn't enough information to be (in my opinion) a " full " article, having this not be merged / deleted would be a violation of WP:UNDUE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I'ma editor2022 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 12:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete For a number of reasons. The article has multiple issues and article content fails Wikipedia:SBST, WP:UNDUE and is questionable in other areas too. Additionally the article content has been entirely created by a single user with no further improvements being made and the majority of the consenus is delete. Pipesmoking Legend (talk) 10:12, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pipesmoking Legend, please can you strike your vote as you voted on 24 February. TSventon (talk) 10:47, 4 March 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. and none is likely to develop in a strong enough manner to tip the mixed, policy-based !votes Star Mississippi 03:13, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wired Productions[edit]

Wired Productions (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)

Provided references do not prove notability. Fails WP:CORP Brayan ocaner (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Award and nomination were added to article. Kindly check out it. Fabiobengario (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A BEFORE provide enough RS from reliable independent sources in game industry. After a Google search I investigate the references of article. Based on provided WP:SIGV, It meets WP:GNG, at least to my eye. Alimovvarsu (talk) 16:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep An award-winning company (award and nomination were added to article), publisher of multiple notable video game and receiving significant coverage in independent game websites. passes WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Fabiobengario (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Fabiobengario (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
  • Note: The *company* did not win any awards. The award was to Emily Mitchell who created the game - also not a BAFTA but a MVC/Develop award. Similarly, the BAFTA nomination was for the game not the company. HighKing++ 21:34, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The company is mentioned in some of the RS, though the RS isn't great quality; most of the good RS mentions the products. The company however is prolific, its games are certainly mentioned, and the company has won some high profile awards, so passes GNG and WP:CORP Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article content does not determine notability. Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. And finally, the nominator left a low effort vaguewave nomination without articulating why the extent of the sources available on the internet, not merely the ones cited to the article, does not establish the topic as meeting the guidelines highlighted by WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Haleth (talk) 12:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on above keep voters's arguments and availability of enough coverage. Zeddedm (talk) 10:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I removed it from the Video game WikiProject's request list a while back for not being notable. It clearly still isn't, the sources range from trivial coverage to press releases and lacks significant secondary sourcing that passes WP:NCORP. I'd like to see the article creator provide WP:THREE best sources that prove it is notable and maybe I would change my mind, but so far none of the keep !votes have demonstrated as such, besides WP:ITSNOTABLE. Simply winning awards is again not enough to indicate standalone notability, and allowing companies to make articles solely based on their press releases risks turning Wikipedia into a method of advertising that goes against WP:NOT. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:48, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftifying or weak delete: I agreed with Piotrus that it is a company that have released several notable products, but sources about the company itself are really lacking. I have tried to create an article for this company in the past after seeing a request for this at WP:VG/REQ but ultimately I don't think there are enough sources out there to justify a proper article right now. This two sources are quite good, but they are essentially interviews with the founder and there are a lot of PR talk. Notability is not inherited. The editors who cited WP:BEFORE and WP:NEXIST really need to provide an example of what's out there that can actually be used to demonstrate notability instead of just citing the policy/guideline. Ultimately, I think the company can become notable one day (as long as some gaming RS are willing to write about them), so draftifying the article is a good option. OceanHok (talk) 15:43, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's no reasonable reason for moving it to draft! The article is notable or not, if so keep and if not delete. Additional to sources cited in the article, by a Google searching I found [33], [34], [35], [36], [37]. All of provided sources indicates notability of company clearly. Alsothe company has won a notable award. Notability has been established. Misasory (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But none of these sources are about the company itself. These sources show that one of their games are notable, but did not show that the company itself is notable. OceanHok (talk) 04:15, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article on publisher of notable games. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 21:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am of like mind with Keep arguments. Publisher of various notable video games, It could be considered as a notable tech company. In my opinion citations are good enough for demonstrating notability of company for current content in article. Elbatli (talk) 21:55, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is essentially a listing taken the information from the company website. There is no historical analysis, merely a copy of what is available on the web and of little encyclopeadic value. The games themselves, there is no mainstream AAA titles I can see. Looking at the references they are a clear violation of NCORP, specifically WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND and WP:SIRS. It is the usual routine coverage. The coverage above is more to do with censorship that the game itself, showing the level of interest in the company. Not a single reference in the first block provide in-depth coverage of the company. It is all routine muck. scope_creepTalk 02:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, your comment is extermly unqualified about this company.ZanciD (talk) 13:28, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But he is not wrong. Majority of the sources listed in the article are about the products they have released, and not about the company. We need sources that discuss the company in a significant manner (e.g. its history), not sources that talk about the games they have released. OceanHok (talk) 11:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I hope the sources provided by "Ahmed" are enough to demonstrate WP:GNG to you.Fabiobengario (talk) 11:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I really couldn't understand the reason of delete voters! The page has significant coverage in reliable sources based on the page's references and mentioned sources in this discuss. The company with several notable products that was featured in reliable sources. It clearly meets WP:NCORP, as sources are proving that. ZanciD (talk) 13:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 12:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Too promotional as it stand currently. Perhaps it can be modified to a more neutral point of view. Nweil (talk) 16:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure that you didn't read the article! Because there is not any promotional word or advertising! As I said there is not even one promotional word, even one word. Fabiobengario (talk) 11:34, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep After reading all the references so far, I believe it passes WP:NCORP and justify subject's notability. Notability also is asserted by award and nomination that are definitely independent refernces.Ginbopewz (talk) 11:58, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Because the company is publisher of some of notable recent-released video games, so finding sources focusing on company (no its games) is difficult. Anyway I investigated that and found [38], [39], [40], [41], [42],[43], [44]. Sources are focusing on the company directly. Passes WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Ahmed (talk) 14:44, 3 March 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 13:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Rogowski[edit]

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to show they meet WP:GNG, and does not meet any of the criteria of WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 TT me 12:30, 1 March 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 13:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Baugher[edit]

Joe Baugher (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)

BLP based entirely on subject's personal page. A quick google search doesn't produce any coverage from other sources. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:46, 1 March 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 13:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Project Nightfall[edit]

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

The assertion that this YouTube channel has - see text in the article - 1.74 million subscribers, and 302,439,705 views, would in my opinion, set this apart from the usual run-of-the-mill "I have a YouTube channel" {{Db-web}} speedy deletions. There is extensive internet coverage of this particular channel and the living person behind it. What I would question is whether they are reliable sources independent of the subject, rather than social media (and/or similar) reposts of what would appear to be Primary sources, the assertions made about the channel and/or its creator. As always, please do prove me wrong about this. Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 11:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox isn't a primary source (mostly) Cranloa12n (talk) 02:20, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus among established editors that she does not meet biographic notability standards Star Mississippi 03:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Juliette Rossant[edit]

Juliette Rossant (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)

Promotional article sourced almost entirely to subjects own articles in Forbes and alumni magazines. Lacks independent secondary sources covering the subject sufficient to satisfy WP:ANYBIO, and falls far short of the requirements of WP:JOURNALIST. Coretheapple (talk) 19:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have added a reference but yes this article needs a lot of changes. I also think this subject is notable and the article can be kept if changes are done and notable reference are added. FBedits (talk) 04:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep if the book reviews that are elicited here exist. I didn’t see links. But assuming good faith that they exist. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 14:10, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I found one other book review: Money Toques. By: Smillie, Dirk, Forbes, 00156914, 4/19/2004, Vol. 173, Issue 8 (note that she wrote or writes for Forbes magazine). I can't get to Gastronimica, but the reviews I did see, including "First Meals, Then Deals", which is listed here, are all pretty brief. Oddly, the Publisher's Weekly review pans the book, calling it: "This plodding group biography traces the careers and personal lives of chefs..." I find nothing about HER in any independent sources. The majority of sources here are not independent. Lamona (talk) 00:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my nomination. The "Career" section consists of an unsourced recitation of the subject's journalism career, and padded text on the "Super Chefs" book. The added reviews do not contribute to notability as observed by Lamona, The "magazine" subsection relates to a personal website that has been inactive since 2017. Coretheapple (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC) The numerous citations added subsequent to my !vote, (such as footnote nos. 14-23) show Rossant being quoted. They are citations to articles about other people, I'll not remove them but these are trivial mentions that do not belong in the article and do not establish notability. Coretheapple (talk) 18:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep following major overhaul – not only shorter text but numerous citations to books, magazines, and newspapers that document notability as expert; previous voters, please be sure to re-read entry and re-vote - Aboudaqn (talk) 17:44, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This seems pretty noteworthy to me, article seems fine, and notability is clear when subject is cited as expert to publications like New York Times and TIME Magazine. Raffmeiste (talk) 02:22, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:11, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: original article from 2006 now revised 2022 with major overhaul: text is shorter, more encyclopedic, and contains up-to-date citations (scholarly books, popular books, magazines, newspapers) that document subject's notability as expert - Aboudaqn (talk) 13:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC) Strike duplicate !vote. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 18:14, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep: Looks plenty notable to me! - Bobo1926 (talk) 15:36, 3 March 2022 (UTC) — Bobo1926 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 23:46, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just to reiterate so I'm kept in this round, I do think this article is noteworthy and meets all criteria for being kept. The subject is being cited in large publications, and this article should stay around. Raffmeiste (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2022 (UTC) Strike duplicate !vote. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 12:33, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
you cannot !vote twice. LibStar (talk) 23:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. Lacking indepth coverage of her as the subject. LibStar (talk) 23:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Don't know what went on above with the SPA's, but I don't see this person being notable. The article seems in a better position right now compared to how it was before the nomination, but I can still clearly see WP:REFBOMB attempts. Per WP:SIGCOV, merely "being cited" isn't enough, and without significant coverage there is no sign of a GNG pass. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 12:33, 4 March 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! 05:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ethel Davis (diplomat)[edit]

Ethel Davis (diplomat) (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:BIO. No significant coverage. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 02:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:52, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:26, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lion Md Gani Miah Babul[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Lion Md Gani Miah Babul (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 notability guidelines for journalists and any bio. The subject does not possess the required in-depth coverage in reliable sources for standalone biography. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 04:21, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:52, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:29, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Kaul (actor)[edit]

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

Only one significant role and a few other roles but they aren't essentially lead. There are some reliable sources cited but are typical churnalism content or interviews. Hence the subject isn't meeting either WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG independently. ManaliJain (talk) 04:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:52, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Public School Kharod[edit]

Public School Kharod (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 school doesn't meet WP:NSCHOOL or WP:GNG. WP:PROD was contested. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:09, 1 March 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. Spartaz Humbug! 16:46, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mikey_Likes_It_Ice_Cream[edit]

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

I'm willing to be proven wrong, but looks like a fairly run-of-the-mill ice-cream shop with nothing more than the normal publicity that I'd expect. I can't see great sources. Someone just added some information about them teaming up with Microsoft, which looked potentially interesting, but they ref-bombed it with a huge list of very weak sources, so I'm not even convinced by that. Doesn't look in any way notable. Elemimele (talk) 22:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:55, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:55, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, of course. Mikey's has collaborated with Geico, Microsoft, and Ewing, but more importantly it has a ton of coverage in reliable sources, including Vice, Essence, NY Post, and ABC News, among others. pburka (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep just because it's a stub right now doesn't mean it can't be expanded. A quick Google search turned up dozens of articles, some almost 10 years ago and one from only 6 days ago, showing that it does have lasting coverage. >>> Wgullyn.talk(); 01:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wgullyn: I'd be really grateful if you could suggest one that's not an interview. It'd be just so good if we can get this article supported by at least one source that's independent of the subject. All four of those suggested by Pburka are interviews/churnalism and when I did my googling, all I could find was a complete plethora of almost identical interview-based pieces, and blog-type stuff about the Microsoft icecream. Elemimele (talk) 09:40, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In the spirit of honesty, I should make it clear that I removed a sentence about the microsoft collaboration before creating this AfD because it was supported by no less than 17 citations, all of which were to interviews, blogs etc.; anyone who wishes to assess those sources is welcome to have a look at the previous version here [45]. Elemimele (talk) 09:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There are some reliable sources on the topic, including The Verge NBC eater.com. Sure, there are a lot of interviews, but there are definitely secondary sources in the mix. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 13:00, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The dismissal of any source that includes an interview isn't supported by Wikipedia policies, and dismissing reliable sources as "churnalism" certainly isn't. Regardless, the business has also received significant coverage in Rehabilitation Is Reentry (Garot; p. 315; Routledge; 2019), and Stronger Together (Clinton and Kaine; p. 201; Simon & Schuster; 2016). pburka (talk) 16:04, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Lots of editors fail to realise that sources may be used to support facts/information within an article - and sure, interviews are fine for that. But there's a different examination for sources used to establish notability - and primary sources (which is what an interview is) are not acceptable for certain topics, such as companies/organizations. Check out WP:ORGIND and the definition for "Independent Content". HighKing++ 12:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, please do put the book references in. But honestly the existing sources apart from your books are not good sources. Theverge one says next to nothing about the ice-cream business, it's mostly a promotional piece for microsoft, and quite probably commissioned publicity. The Newyork entertainment piece is a short interview piece featuring 4 icecream outlets, of which this one gets less than 30sec. The eater is also really just a passing reference, being mostly about Hilary Clinton. These are fine as subsidiary references, but is there anything in depth and independent? If the books are, please put them in, because the article desperately needs them.
    as for the comment about dismissing interviews, Pburka, I quote "Generally speaking, it is okay to sparingly use interviews to source some facts, so long as the article is also using a good mixture of other types of reliable sources" from Wikipedia:Interviews. That's precisely what I want. Elemimele (talk) 16:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I trust you're not mistaking an essay for policy. pburka (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. The WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS section most likely applies to this type of company.
  • I'm assuming all the sources are reliable (unless obvious blogs or social media) and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization - but there's more requirements than that for establishing notability.
  • As per WP:SIRS each reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant, there can be 100 references but for the purposes of establishing notability we only require a minumum of two that each meet the criteria
  • WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content".
  • "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. 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. They are considered primary sources for most purposes. Whatever is left over must also meet CORPDEPTH.
Not a single reference either mentioned above or in the article meet the criteria. Most discuss the tie-in with Windows11 but even then, the others focus on the owner/founder - great story but doesn't translate to notability of the company for me. Topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. If anyone wants to post other references (perhaps reviews?) I'm happy to review and perhaps change my mind. HighKing++ 12:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete - despite refbombing, there is little independent coverage from good sources. 22:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep References represent SIGCOV and are independent and reliable. Passes GNG GoldMiner24 Talk 15:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Promotional article, not notable as explained by HighKing. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 20:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete Routine promo article with no historical or encyclopeadic value. scope_creepTalk 02:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are assertions about the sources that are diametrically opposite to one another, but at the moment the closing admin is being asked to judge the sources for themselves; elaboration from all parties of why they consider sources counting toward NCORP, or why they don't, would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 04:07, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Vanamonde93: thank you for your accurate summary. My personal view is that although the supporting sources are in good places, they're all fairly trivial, and generic: for example one is an interview piece visiting several ice-cream outlets, which means it's more about the concept of ice-cream sales in NY than about Mikey's, and is a rather short feel-good space-filler; the Microsoft bit is about Mikey's, but my impression is that some marketing people had a mutually-beneficial idea, and this is the sort of publicity they'd generate to carry it through. My attention was drawn to this article in the first place by an addition that was ref-bombed with 17 sources, some of which were automatically tagged as deprecated and unreliable [46]. But of course many bad sources doesn't mean all bad sources. And I am absolutely happy to put my hands up and admit I don't know the full details of the ice-cream or publishing scenes in NY: an independent assessment of the sources from someone else would carry far more weight than mine. Elemimele (talk) 14:16, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - minimal coverage exists of this two (three?) location ice cream chain. Fails WP:GNG. Also, WP:TOOSOON. It's a nice feel good story - hopefully more coverage will occur as he expands. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 00:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. The article would probably be a narrow pass on WP:GNG, but the community norm is that a mere WP:GNG pass when coupled with an WP:NCORP fail renders an article notable. Much of the coverage is about Cole as a person—coverage of Cole's story as a convicted felon-turned-ice cream salesman is an inspiring story, the coverage of which very well may render him passing WP:NBIO. But I'm not really seeing coverage in the online sources that the pair of stores passes WP:CORPDEPTH. I'm seeing above that pburka mentions at least one usable book (I'm not so sure about Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign manifesto being an RS in this context). I don't have access to the source, but I might be persuaded that coverage goes beyond WP:CORPDEPTH if the coverage in that book is substantial. Is anybody able to describe the sorts of facts that the book contains regarding the article subject? — Mhawk10 (talk) 05:21, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. there is no consensus to delete the content, and move/merge can be handled editorially Star Mississippi 03:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Gates Shopping Centre[edit]

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

The Gates Shopping Centre has very minimal primary sources, and this is unlikely to change as the complex has being demolished. The current sources are insufficient to support the complex being of significance: Source 1 is no longer working and has no usable archive, source 2 has a working archive but is a single line and sources 3-10 discuss the new complex built on the same, with different owners. I have checked Google, Google News & Google Scholar’s and from the few sources I’ve been able to find, 1 was a planning application for the new complex and another was a developer for the new complex. The rest is primarily made up of directory links for stores previously in the complex. GeekBurst (talk) 00:18, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The coverage of the redevelopment makes it notable. Properties do not lose notability if they are being redeveloped. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • :@TenPoundHammer: There’s tons of malls that have been demolished and had news articles about what was built on the site, but that doesn’t then make the mall itself notable. There’s practically no evidence of it existing other than the news it was getting demolished. The redevelopment is a completely different project, witg new owners which just happens to include retail. I struggle to see why this specific mall isn’t [WP:RUNOFTHEMILL]. There’s no media coverage of the existing development to help expand the article either.

GeekBurst (talk) 12:35, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, online you can find some more sources that are not present in the article, for example here. Sahaib (talk) 06:18, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to The Riverwalk- I doubt that the former Gates Shopping Mall is notable (WP:RUNOFTHEMILL), and the majority of the coverage is merely in passing- there appears to have been enough coverage regarding its redevelopment to make the new entity (The Riverwalk) notable. Considering that the Riverwalk appears to inherit quite a bit of the Ex-Gates Shopping Centre's buildings, this might be the best option to deal with this article. Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 11:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move and leave a redirect. Padgriffin's suggestion is eminently sensible, creating a useful joint article on the present and past history of the shopping centre on this site, and if we include a redirect, then anyone who is looking for the Gates in its previous existence will find themselves in the right place. Elemimele (talk) 15:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:RUNOFTHEMILL is a personal essay and not policy. It has also been deemed inapplicable to shopping malls in previous discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How does The Gates meet the notability guidelines listed in WP:NBUILD? There isn’t ‘significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability.’. The sources currently referenced primarily discuss The Riverwalk, a separate development built on the same site.
I fail to see how the loose reference to ‘The Gates’ makes the former complex notable? This article has been up for almost 15 years and hasn’t managed to expand beyond a handful of sentences. There’s no history or past developments to discuss, only the current situation which is that it’s been refurbished/partly demolished. It would be much more suitable to create an article about the new development and make a brief mention of the site history.
I have previously queried about adding information on The Riverwalk to this article and have been told that it would be against best practice, as it’s discussing a different complex. So how can articles about the new complex be used as a way to prove the original was notable?
As I previously stated, I fail to see how the news of a complex being demolished, makes said complex notable.
There are no primary sources discussing the centre itself when it was active, only those from when it was demolished. An alternative option to a deletion, and if making a ‘The Riverwalk’ page wasn’t agreed upon would be to add The Gates to the main Durham article, as I fail to see the need of an article for a couple sentences. GeekBurst (talk) 18:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Merge I think it shouldnt be deleted but merged, not exactly sure what it would be merged with. It could be merged with the main city article under the ecomony section with a subtitle redevelopments such as what happened over on this article, and if anyone finds any more redevelopments that could be noted they can all go in one place since alone there is nothing really notable about the mall, other than it got redeveloped to some small shops. -- Jade (Talk) • they/them 18:14, 21 February 2022 (UTC) Note, I fully decided on my decision after the fact so edited this comment[reply]
  • Move/merge Agree with Padgriffin's suggestion, or merge into main Durham article. Paul W (talk) 10:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Durham,_England: After taking on board the feedback from others in the discussion, I think The Gates along with the new Riverwalk development would be suited to a discussion in an economy or developments section of the main Durham article. GeekBurst (talk) 02:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or move. Durham, England is over 100,000 bytes, it absolutely does not need any more content stuffed into it. NemesisAT (talk) 11:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I do note that - but that doesn’t mean we should have articles for a few sentences. Would a suitable solution be having an ‘Economy of Durham’ article? GeekBurst (talk) 14:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the problem with having an article only a few sentences long? Sure, that could be a solution but that article should be created before this one is meged. NemesisAT (talk) 09:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus on move/merge target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:37, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:05, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kundalam Rangachariar[edit]

Kundalam Rangachariar (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:BIO. Nothing in gnews, plain google search mainly reveals WP mirrors. Perhaps someone could search in Hindi (as there is no Hindi version of this article). LibStar (talk) 02:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. After a thorough search, I was unable to locate any sources. Based on several community posts, it is clear that the person was real.GeezGod (talk) 19:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. As agreed with the above comments, the person is worthy and real, but that a complete record, like biography, doesn't exist. However, there has been numerous records of the contributions the person has made, which have been quoted in the page. The reason is mainly due to the non-digitized records in India, which prevents searching information from more than 30-40 years via a computer, and that that would require physical searches though the documents and records. If deletion would be the final decision in this case, I request to provide a maximum time of 6 months to manually search through the archives and provide references. Bajjibala (talk • contribs) 07:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There is an article in the hindu archived here. One must keep this as a stub because we must ensure that historically significant individuals are not left out because of the built in bias for having articles record what is verifiable online through numerous verifiable links to articles. Especially in parts of the world where documentation and archives are not digitized or even maintained as well. The stub tag is relevant but my opinion is that keeping the article can retain a record of this scholar and his contributions to Sanskrit.InfiNeuro (talk) 04:18, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the in-depth source that Wikipedia requires. At best it is a mention. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete Appearing in lists of people, passing mentions, and being "well known" to someone, even if that person is notable, are not sufficient to show WP notability. I understand that finding sources might be difficult, but simply claiming a person is "worthy and real" is not enough. Papaursa (talk) 02:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to John Flansburgh. (non-admin closure) Ab207 (talk) 13:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mono Puff[edit]

Mono Puff (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)

Found passing references with regards to John Flansburgh's involvement, but WP:NOTINHERITED is in play here. The only sources presently are all WP:PRIMARY (Flansburgh's blog, liner notes to the albums), and further searching yielded almost nothing useful. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That simply means that Flansburgh's article can be improved, not that Mono Puff is notable on its own. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:17, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no, the most important policy states that topics may be notable if there is in-depth, substantial, reliable, and independent sourcing--everything else, including my above comment, is preference and consensus. Again, I don't particularly care--which is why I didn't "vote" or proactively add references; it's more that AfDs catch my eye where coverage is going to be in print sources. Caro7200 (talk) 17:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that reads more snappish than I intended it to. Caro7200 (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with John Flansburgh: Place it in the "Side projects" part of the page. If notability improves then it can be split in the future. Gusfriend (talk) 06:28, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:44, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gerner Kronick + Valcarcel Architects[edit]

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

Article about a company that seems to fail WP:NCORP. All references are either dead or about their projects (e.g. 5 Beekman Street), not them. Notability is not inherited from designing notable or quasi-notable buildings. Note that the company name is sometimes spelled with an & instead of a +. The closest I could find to a notability-supporting source was [47], which shows that they won an award that does not have a Wikipedia article for designing a Park Hyatt hotel in Istanbul. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude talk 14:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Geeta Vadhera[edit]

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

I can't find reliable sources on a Google search. When I tried to check some of the links that are peppered at the bottom of the article I get dead links and threat warnings. At the very least the link farm at the bottom should be removed immediately. Is it vandalism by an IP? Check the links at your own risk. I think the whole article should be deleted. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References have been updated to reflect websites that have closed All links are active . I have checked each one and added new working links. Geeta Vadhera has had a long stellar career as an artist and has had multiple exhibitions much before the internet was invented. She is an awardee of the Bharat Nirman Award as well and reference to the same has been provided. Please attempt Google Search again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.139.128.252 (talk) 03:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep - thanks to 150.242.172.148 and KH-1 for suggesting links, I've added them to the article and she passes GNG now. Mujinga (talk) 15:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in 2010, @Modernist: added a section about modern Indian painting to History of painting with this edit, and added "Geeta Vadhera has had acclaim in translating complex, Indian spiritual themes onto canvas like Sufi thought, the Upanishads and the Bhagwad Geeta." No sources were provided, but perhaps we can ask where that came from? I can't find it. Vexations (talk) 12:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment* See also [48] from The Straits Times, Singapore - Some of the exhibitions are pre internet era so this is article is on microfilm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.242.172.148 (talk) 05:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, where are the wikinotable galleries/museums that hold her work or significant exhibitions that she has been involved with? at the moment it is a delete from me as not meeting WP:NARTIST or WP:GNG. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:25, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any !voters?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Four articles from The Straits Times covering her work in the 1980s: [49] [50] [51] [52]. Possibly enough coverage to meet WP:GNG?-KH-1 (talk) 05:03, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Straits Times is not reliable and the articles are puff pieces. One of the "reviews" was for an art exhibit at a hotel. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:07, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They're not puff pieces and The Straits Times is reliable. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources says "The Straits Times is the largest newspaper in Singapore. There is consensus that it is generally reliable so long as the Singapore government is not involved in its coverage". Cheers KH-1 for the sources! Mujinga (talk) 15:36, 4 March 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! 04:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weidmüller[edit]

Weidmüller (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/WP:SIGCOV, sources cited are not independent, routine business announcements or commercial blurbs. The one exception is an article in Network World about their online sales system, but that does not suffice to establish notablility. Kleuske (talk) 18:34, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The article in its present state isn't great, reads like an ad and contains a good bit of promotion. But its a well established company that should have it's own article - Towel401 (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:21, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. I'm not responding because I was pinged - this was on my list of AfD topics in any case.`
  • As per WP:SIRS each reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant, there can be 100 references but for the purposes of establishing notability we only require a minumum of two that each meet the criteria
  • WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content".
  • "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. 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 Keep !voters above have returned with any references and I am unable to find a single reference that meets the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 15:49, 7 March 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 Sous. Liz Read! Talk! 04:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sus al-Aksa[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Sus al-Aksa (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 "town", if such a town has ever existed Mooonswimmer 10:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://sites.google.com/site/teimrevista/numeros/numero-9/territorio-historia-e-identidad-sus-el-aksa-o-sahara-occidental? Djflem (talk) 15:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Sous. This reference, Henry Coppée (1881), like the ones above suggests that the name refers more properly to the region in southern Morocco, which is nowhere near Tangiers as the article currently claims. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it does not meet the notability guidelines. Sahaib (talk) 06:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 02:59, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Sahaib3005. --Vaco98 (talk) 03:15, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • REdirect/merge to Sous -- It is presumably the place giving its name to the region. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:00, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Sous -- from what I can find, this is a historical sub-region of the Sous, not a town. I've made a quick edit to Sous to make this clear, but I haven't done any significant searching so what I added is pretty barebones. This article could quite likely get split off again at some point, but since it doesn't have much content right now it should probably just be redirected to the parent topic.3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 02:07, 8 March 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. Questions about the copyright status are one issue, but none of the keep !votes are (including G Moore's accidental? double vote) are policy based or refute the arguments made to delete. While there could be an article with this topic, we're brought back to the copyvio situation. Star Mississippi 03:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of hospitals in Algeria[edit]

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

The article is a complete mess, only like 4 of the entries are blue linked, and the rest appear to be referenced mainly (or only) to primary sources, and there's zero evidence the hospitals are discussed anywhere reliable as a group or set. Also, going by the talk page the names of the hospitals and their coordinates largely come from Google Maps, which as far as I'm aware doesn't have a license that is compatible with Wikimedia. Really the article should be deleted on that alone, but I thought I'd send it through AfD anyway. That said, if anyone wants to try and have the article speedy deleted because of the Copyvio then be my guest. Adamant1 (talk) 12:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There are 143 different sources for this list. Someone else started this article and I tried to clean it up and add sourcing. I would have put the information in a single table for sorting, but stuck with the original format. It is organized by Province, like many of the existing Lists of hospitals in County. I kept the Province summaries because it gave relevance to the number of hospitals in the Province. , which exists for every country. This article fits within the guidelines of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Hospitals and is a top priority. Using Google Earth or Google Maps is a fair use to obtain coordinates, as far as I known. References such as news reports and foreign embassy lists are tied to individual hospitals when they exist. Google is used throughout Wikipedia. The article contains summaries of significant information about Algerian hospitals that also stands alone as significant. The most notable hospitals should probably have articles, including those established in when Algeria was a French colony and larger hospitals. Respectively, WP:Hospitals, User:G. Moore -- Talk to G Moore 14:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@G. Moore: A few things, first of all WP:SNG is clear that Wikiproject's don't decide what's notable and that their standards should be disregarded in deletion discussions. Secondly, according to your comment on the articles talk page you used Google Maps to obtain and confirm names and places using Google Maps, not "coordinates." If you used Google Maps just to obtain the coordinates, cool, but that's what your original comment said. It's still a proprietary map and using it to obtain or confirm "names and places" isn't a part of fair use. For instance you can't just copy and paste that information into OpenStreetMaps because it would be a copyright violation to do so. Also, what significant information does the article contain about the individual hospitals? It's literally just a list of the name of the hospitals and where they are located. In no way is that "significant information." In the meantime the first two paragraphs of the article could just as easily go in WP:Healthcare in Algeria along with the few hospitals that are blue linked. There's zero legitimate reason to have a list article just for the lead paragraph though. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unsure how using coordinates from Google Maps could possibly be a copyright violation. Many hospitals around the world do have their own articles on Wikipedia so it is likely that, given time, many of those listed here will have articles created. NemesisAT (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@NemesisAT: See my comment above this one. It wasn't coordinates, and 100% using Google Maps to to "obtain and confirm names and places" and then copying them to Wikipedia is a copyright violation. Also, your last sentence is just nonsense. The article has been around for a couple of years, never had more then a few blue links and was always badly referenced. If there was ever a chance of it being different then G. Moore should have put in the effort to make it a notable article before hand by creating articles about the individual hospitals first. It's not on the rest of the community that they didn't though. Nor should the article be retained indefinitely while we wait for G. Moore to get it up to snuff with WP:LISTN by creating a bunch of articles they probably aren't going to create or that will just be deleted for a lack of notability if they do anyway. In the meantime, this ever being in line with WP:LISTN has almost zero chance of happening since it seems like G. Moore doesn't really care about it. Even if they did though, they should still have created the individual articles first instead of just assuming someone else would eventually. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 02:56, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete Unstructured list of dead link spam. No instrinsic, historical or encyclopeadic value. Absolute trash. Fails WP:NOT, WP:AUD and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. scope_creepTalk 00:14, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep It does have a structure. It is grouped by province. There is similar list in the French WikiPedia. I added some Inter language links to show which hospitals could easily have articles written based on French references. Having a list of major hospitals in a country helps determine which are the notable hospitals that should have articles, just as the French article did. Talk to G Moore 14:37, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@G. Moore: If the list was for "major" hospitals maybe I'd agree with you, but that's hardly what this list is. For instance one of the entries is for a diabetic day hospital with 15 beds. There's nothing "major" about that. Nor are the multiple entries for 60 bed hospitals. Even if we were going by the notability criteria for hospitals that Wikiproject Hospitals has, which is 500 beds if I'm remembering correctly, only like 4 of the hospitals on this list would qualify as notable. Not that there is any kind of standard for major hospitals inherently being notable anyway though. Hell, even if we went with your whole thing about basing a notable list off of the French article, only like three of the entries in it are blue linked and from what I can tell they are all referenced to primary sources. So even that part of your comment is completely nonsensical and irrelevant. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could we agree that there should be a List of hospitals in Algeria article listing each of the largest (size, staff size, or number of beds) hospitals, oldest hospitals (such as those left from colonial times), or otherwise significant hospitals that have one or more references to the hospital in Algerian or international news or government websites? Add to this a discussion of the the total number of hospitals in major cities and provinces and how hospitals are classified in the country. Talk to G Moore 04:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No we can't, because that's not what this list is. Nor does it seem like the type of list you or anyone else is willing to make. If it was and you were then I wouldn't have nominated it for deletion in the first place. instead it's a list of a bunch of extremely minor hospitals that are cited to primary websites. I'd have zero problem with a well referenced, mostly blue linked list of "colonial" hospitals with more then 500 beds in Algeria or whatever though. Maybe create List of colonial hospitals in Algeria if that's what your concern is and actually create some articles about them this time. Then I'll agree with you that we should have a list covering them. I don't agree that there should be this list though and especially not as it currently is. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Pinging previous participants as this is looking like a no consensus close unless further discussion is had. @NemesisAT, G. Moore, Adamant1, and Scope creep: please make your replies if you are going to. ––FormalDude talk 15:58, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude talk 16:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The information is copied directly from the Algerian Health Department and the EPH - EHS - EPSP - INFSPM in Hospitals in Béjaïa Province sites. It is all copyvio. It's also a listing article with no quality and of little value. Is it the purpose of Wikipedia to susbtitute the rightful ownership of such information and publish what is in the effect health critical information that is maintained on these health sites? No. Do you think an Algerian person who needs a doctor is going to visit Wikipedia to determine where the hospital is. No. Of course not. It is absolutely absurd to suggest otherwise. So where is the historical or encyclopedic value in maintaining such an article. Hospital articles are good in the sense that critical research is undertaken there, so many of them are generally notable, the most presigious by definition. Many on this list are non-notable in the broadest and narrowest sense and will never have an article So what is the point of such an article. The only missing thing from it that would turn it into a direct reflection of the health sites is the phone numbers. Is Wikipedia a directory. NO. So why turn it a directory when its explicity not its purpose. Directories don't inform nor engender learning. They are for looking up a number and that it is. It is trash. Pure trash with no value. scope_creepTalk 16:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Bahareth[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Mohammad Bahareth (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)

All but one of the sources provided would be considered reliable but it's no where near enough to show they meet the GNG criteria. My searches only bring up a bunch of press releases. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 02:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:38, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lesotho–Turkey relations[edit]

Lesotho–Turkey relations (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. No embassies or agreements. The state visits were part of multilateral forums. The trade is tiny at less than $2 million. The reading list contains no mentions of Turkey. LibStar (talk) 02:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Africa, and Turkey. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are two bilateral agreements that I could verify. There was a Commercial and Economic Cooperation Agreement signed in 2016 ([53]) and an Air Transport Agreement in 2018 ([54]). Apparently the 2016 agreement was ratified in Turkey in 2021 in an attempt to thwart Gülenist influence in Lesotho ([55]). The 2018 agreement was apparently a result of the Lesotho MFA's visit to Turkey [56]. --GGT (talk) 20:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll go for a weak delete here. The coverage that is there in terms of the agreements hardly qualifies for WP:SIGCOV. The current article content probably consists of original research (hard to believe that bilateral relations would deteriorate due to a coup in Lesotho). The treaties can be briefly mentioned in the foreign relations tables for each country. If someone genuinely wants to work on this and we find that the content is too detailed for those articles, I'm happy to reconsider. --GGT (talk) 17:44, 5 March 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! 05:13, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Central massive object[edit]

Central massive object (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 a stub article about a term that is not commonly used in astronomy. If we want to mention it at all, a sentence or two on the supermassive black hole or nuclear star cluster would be enough. Parejkoj (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The term isn't in common use, but it does have long-standing use in cases where the nature of the central object cannot be distinguished. For example, Martin Rees used it in 1978 [57] and it's been recommended by some well cited 21st century papers [58] [59] [60] [61]. ESO used the term as the title of conference in 2010 [62] so it seems accepted by the research community. A full-text search on ADS shows ~900 sources using the phrase (or the slight variant 'central supermassive object'). The article certainly could do with further expansion, but it's not useless. Modest Genius talk 19:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the article is somewhat misleading because the term can refer to a massive object at the center of a globular cluster, or a star hidden in an accretion disk. Praemonitus (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The term itself does have any specific meaning beyound: "a massive object in the center of something". This is just a dictionary definition. There is no need for this article. Ruslik_Zero 20:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: this seems like a sort of borderline case. The concept of CMO is not particularly important in and of itself in astronomy since it’s just a term for "massive thing in a galaxy center that could be either a black hole or a star cluster", but the term has been used in enough papers in the research literature that there’s a case to be made that the concept of a CMO has some notability. It would seem to satisfy the requirements of WP:NOTDICT in that it refers to a concept that the article title can denote, and although the article is a short stub it contains more than just a dictionary definition. On that basis I would lean towards keeping this one, but just barely. Aldebarium (talk) 20:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 02:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have to agree with previous commenters, due to the scholarly articles] on the topic, as noted by Modest Genius, this topic has notability, even if it isn't important in anf of itself in astronomy as Aldebarium notes.71.179.1.78 (talk) 14:21, 2 March 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) 01:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Women on Their Way[edit]

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

This article was created in 2011, and declined at AfC twice before now-retired user User:CharlieEchoTango accepted it. I put it to you that he made a mistake, and it should never have been in mainspace. —S Marshall T/C 00:59, 1 March 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 01:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pâmela Butt[edit]

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

Nothing in Google news and my first five pages of google results didn’t return a singe RS. That leaves a two line quotation in the guardian which is neither substantive nor independent and pretty much that’s it. Fails ENT and GNG Spartaz Humbug! 16:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment always unsure about these pornographic performer articles, I'd say she's just another one in a list of many. Oaktree b (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failing WP:BASIC. Subject was in a celebrity sex tape with a notable footballer. RS coverage focuses on the footballer and the scandal. The subject only gets only trivial coverage. No claim of WP:NACTOR notability asserted or supported. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 2 March 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 Prong (band)#Members. Sourced content can be merged from history if desired. Sandstein 09:02, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Christopher[edit]

Jason Christopher (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)

clearly not notable enough for an own article FMSky (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Prong (band) not enough sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi. I don’t believe the pge should be deleted. What I do believe is taht the artists should be able to run their own pages. Because there are so many people that can access and write whatever they want. All I believe that there are people who are violent criminals on Wikipedia that shouldn’t have pages. Taht are still acting as violent criminals. I won’t put the name here. But I read about a drummer yesterday that has murdered multiple people. And I read it here. People are so desperate to be featured on a website. We should talk about the good people do for the world. Also like I said many of us have Covid with severe neurological symptoms. And we’re very confused. Plus there are fake webpages made just to slander. That people use to edit these pages as reference. I don’t think they should be taken down. But I definitely think you should stop sharing IP addresses. Anyone else that had a leapfrog can track an IPaddress. And some fans are so obsessed that if you don’t like their band they will hurt you or your family. It’s trying that society is like this. Feel taht at this point in Time there is so little to look forward to. A beacon of light and hope because wall they have. Many people look up to Jason because of his past struggles and his will to do better in life. Same as Courtney love. They aren’t bullies. They are underdogs with hard luck stories. That we want to see survive. Because it gives society hope. And someone to look up to. Thank you for your time in this matter.

Also I was hacked. So personal stuff has been sent out from my private accounts. As I’m sure many have. It’s been daunting on all of us. It’s unfortunate that people thought that during such a hard time on the citizens of the world that mental abuse would be funny or help them in some way. Keep your heads up guys. And cute babydolls. We can do this.

Also Sky quit being rude. We know it’s you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:1296:8A00:A946:9563:95CF:E897 (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:SPAM and WP:SIGCOV. Arguing in 2006 that "artists should be able to run their own pages" could have been excused, but in 2022, it's untenable. We are a private charity, not a soapbox, and everybody knows that. I would not oppose a protected redirect. Bearian (talk) 21:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. This is a biography of a living person that does not cite any sources even after 2 weeks of AfD. WP:V and WP:BLP mandate the deletion of articles that are in such a state. It is not enough that sources (may) exist or are cited in the AfD, they must also be cited in the article to make it verifiable for readers. The article can be recreated if it is also adequately sourced at the same time. I note that the person is or was a member of parliament according to this AfD, which would make him presumptively notable, but the article itself does not make this claim. Sandstein 08:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Radoš Ljušić[edit]

Radoš Ljušić (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)

BLP with no working references, though he does appear to be notable. Rathfelder (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Only because he seems to have written a lot. But I dont understand any of the titles. Rathfelder (talk) 08:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm still not impressed by the sources I see, but as a member of the national parliament he would meet WP:NPOLITICIAN. While that's only a presumption of notability, I suspect there are more sources available in Serbian. At any rate, there's enough to give reasonable doubt, especially given my ability (or lack thereof) to read Serbian. Papaursa (talk) 01:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hello, WP:NEXIST: Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. The subject is notable as a politician, not as a scholar, and has been noted for borderline far-right altitudes and corruptive shenanigans. Here are WP:THREE independent, reliable sources about him:
      • "Radoš Ljušić". Nedeljnik Vreme (in Serbian). 2004-04-07. Retrieved 2022-02-28. (Short bio in Vreme, an independent political magazine, second-oldest political weekly in Serbia)
      • "Radoš Ljušić sam sebi isplaćivao autorske honorare" [Radoš Ljušić paid authorship fees to himself]. Centar za istraživačko novinarstvo Srbije (in Serbian). 2010-07-30. Retrieved 2022-02-28. (Center for Independent Journalism is an award-winning independent journalist organization)
      • "Radoš Ljušić". Istinomer (in Serbian). 2022-01-09. Retrieved 2022-02-28. (Istinomer 'truth-meter' is a notable independent website critical of government)
    He is also a political pundit, having written a regular column in Danas (newspaper) [65], and was long-time director of the state-owned publishing company Službeni glasnik ('Official Gazette') That being said, the existing bland hagiography could use some updating with info form the above sources. No such user (talk) 09:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for responding. The first and third sources you mention seem to be more like interviews to me, with little input from third parties showing his notability. Paying royalties to yourself, even if illegal, seems to fall under WP:CRIME and he doesn't seem to have been convicted of one. Finally, being a columnist or pundit is not sufficient to show WP notability unless he's received significant third party coverage--and I don't see that. I'll admit I'm not up on Serbian politics, but the burden of proof is on those who claim notability. Show me he meets WP:GNG and I'm more than willing to change my vote. Papaursa (talk) 14:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, 1 and 3 aren't interviews. Those are biographies with few selected statements by the subject. 2 is a rather detailed account of his tenure as the publishing house manager; use Google translate. There are other sources covering his career, from changing party affiliation [66] through his tenure as the publishing house CEO [67]. His rather long Serbian Wiki article is apparently based on his faculty page [68] (although it reads like a CV). Oh yes, according to it he was an MP in the national parliament in 2004 and was the president of the Parliament's Council of Education. You're engaging in No true Scotsman.
I grant that the current article is so bad that it borders on WP:TNT, but suggesting that the subject does not meet GNG is ridiculous. No such user (talk) 15:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep -- A search on the English WP for a Serbian subject is likely not to produce results. The output listed in the article is already substantial and seems to be published books (some possibly only pamphlets). I suspect that newspaper columnists in UK papers will have articles, so why not a Serbian one? Peterkingiron (talk) 18:57, 6 March 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) 01:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary "Skeeter" Reece[edit]

Zachary "Skeeter" Reece (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)

We seem to have had this article since January 2011. Umm... look at it. —S Marshall T/C 00:14, 1 March 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_March_1&oldid=1076079756"