Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 March 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 01 March 03 >

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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Musa Cooper[edit]

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

This was nominated for deletion in 2006 and the result was "no consensus". I do not think that this article demonstrates notability per WP:GNG or WP:BIO. He was a contestant on a dance show but did not win (he was in the top 12). He has appeared in some shows here and there, but not as a significant character. He also participated in a track meet and tied for 8th place. The sources are a couple of local newspapers, a blog that offers to interview people, and some other articles where he is not the main focus. There is one short article about him in the Calgary Sun, a recap of one of the dance show episodes. A Google search comes up with fewer than 100 results (which includes Wikipedia mirrors). ... discospinster talk 23:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It also seems like most of the edits made on the article are from Musa Cooper using an IP. ― Tuna NoSurprisesPlease 14:59, 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! 23:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Muturi[edit]

Muturi (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 weird one. There certainly was a Muturi PSC (a structure used in the Indonesian oil and gas industry), and there is a Muturi River, but apart from a dot on the map in the Nat. Geo. Family Reference Atlas, I can't find any evidence that this was ever a town, and the co-ordinates in the article are slightly offshore. PepperBeast (talk) 23:39, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Per above. Also here in local news [1] there are more mentions of Muturi village and also this one [2] is from Tempo Nyanardsan (talk) 11:33, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to be an actual village as well as a site for oil and gas operations but I can only find a former settlement on GeoNames, I can't find the location on google maps.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per above. WP:Preserve WP:Not paper. Is regularly listed as a port in a lot of seafaring triptiks. I also have a sense that our searches are being hampered by language problems; we are by and large English speakers, and I am not sure that google and google books are doing that good a job with Indonesian language sources. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I absolutely am struggling a little with Indonesian sources, but nonetheless, a look at Google Maps shows there is no village at the location stated, or at the recently amended co-ordinates. The best I could do is coordinates found on VYMaps.com, which probably muddies the waters further, since it does give a location, but raises the question of whether Muturi is actually an alternate name for all or part of East Bintuni. VYMaps is also blacklisted by Wikipedia, so there's that. Location suggested on Google Maps PepperBeast (talk) 14:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know if these are acceptable proof but government databases definetly has mentions of Muturi as a village. [3] This one is online tender and auction webstie for Teluk Bintuni Regency government and it has mention of the village, [4] this one is from the same website and it mentions a government project which is a road built to connect the village of Muturi, [5] a database of schools from Ministry of Education which this one mentions a school in Muturi, [6] and this one also from Ministry of Education listin g nonprofit foundations located in Manimeri District (which presumably where the village is located) and has mentions of Muturi village too. Nyanardsan (talk) 15:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also there's an official government online map listing all village boundaries from Ministry of Village database here . Apologize but I could not check it since I have slow internet and the website loads like forever. Anyone can confirm the village's existance there? Nyanardsan (talk) 15:05, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Several sources indicate that this village exists. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:25, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • maybe keep The persistent problem here is that this remains a synthesis of a bunch of sources which aren't coming together coherently. The PSC is no help, being 1,346 sq km in area. Lloyds shipping gives an equally vague location a little to the east, and there's nothing there either. The other map referred to immediately above shows a spot far inland; it's difficult to correlate that map with others due to the overlays. GNS gives a location far inland roughly congruent with the last, and calls it an abandoned populated place; just to the north of this is a pair of obviously man-made spaces, which GMaps calls "Koranoe". I have no idea what GNS's authority for calling it abandoned is or where the GMaps name comes from. It seems to me that to keep this, we need something else which helps sort these out: it seems to me that the shore locations fail verification, but we something which ties the other mentions and info with the inland location. Mangoe (talk) 05:43, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is basically my objection. I'm reasonably happy that a small village called Muturi exists or existed in Bintuni Regency, but I don't see that we have any basis for this article-- not even a location. And I've hunted repeatedly for a location. I just don't see how it passes WP:V. PepperBeast (talk) 12:37, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per various sources it is pointing towards the fact that the village actually exists, but as mentioned above, it cannot be located on Google map. Foodie Soul (talk) 09:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per above and various sources do point to the fact that the village exists.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:33, 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! 23:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Weickert[edit]

Allan Weickert (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, most coverage was through sports databases. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 21:28, 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 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! 23:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Micah Miller[edit]

Micah Miller (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, most coverage is through routine sporting reports. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 21:27, 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! 23:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will Lamb (baseball)[edit]

Will Lamb (baseball) (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:NBASE, run of the mill minor league baseball player whose career is over. SportingFlyer T·C 20:42, 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 List of former American Basketball Association (2000–present) teams. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kalamazoo Cobras[edit]

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

Unsourced. All of the sources I found were published or authored by the team, or were about a criminal story only tangentially related to the team. SportingFlyer T·C 20:41, 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 Matthew Daniels#GreatAmericans.com. Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GreatAmericans.com[edit]

GreatAmericans.com (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. The small amount of independent coverage focuses significantly on the founding director, in whose article I have since inserted content about GreatAmericans.com (Matthew Daniels#GreatAmericans.com). (This may also be an appropriate target of a redirect.) WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 20:17, 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. ✗plicit 00:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sergio Michel[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Sergio Michel (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 came across this article because of a lot of recent BLP vandalism to it and was struck by the fact that this guitarist doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC, at least from what I can see. Looking for sources, I found this and this, neither of which are cited in the article and I don't know if they are sufficient to establish notability for this musician since they don't focus, in depth, on his musical skills or performance. Other sites had just passing mentions, were details about tour dates or were social media accounts.

Previous AFDs resulted in "Delete" and "No consensus" decisions and the last was in 2017 so I wanted to see what the current opinion was on the notability of this artist. Liz Read! Talk! 20:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Liz Read! Talk! 20:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and New Jersey. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I find nothing compelling towards keeping an article this subject. In the two previous AfDs, the only people !voting keep were an editor with 59 edits and an editor blocked in 2017. On the merits, there's nothing applied to the page which meets RS and a reasonable search finds lots of adjectives, but nobody reliable saying them. BusterD (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. My search found only the same sources mentioned above, and I feel that they are all of too low a quality with regard to reliability and independence to satisfy the WP:GNG. None of the criteria listed at WP:NMUSIC appear to be met. On balance, BusterD's comment that "a reasonable search finds lots of adjectives, but nobody reliable saying them" seems to be a wise summary of the situation here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:26, 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. Discounting the opinions of sockpuppets, the consensus is that this bio should be deleted. Liz Read! Talk! 23:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Archishman Sarker[edit]

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

Not notable: does not satisfy WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG. It is also likely an autobiography given this was heavily edited from draft into article-space by an ip and then one user (I'm assuming they are the same person): this user has also uploaded multiple pictures of the person in question, claiming "own work". The main editor to the article has removed speedy deletion and PROD templates from the article, hence I am here stating the obvious. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 19:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

His Google Scholar profile shows zero "cited by", Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 12:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

comment added 07:40, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Citations work in a different way in the humanities unlike more market-oriented disciplines. It cannot be held as a disqualifier. User talk:Milarepanoakhali
  • Delete Not notable, article heavily depend on primary source. Many attempt to remove AfD template. Zsohl(Talk) 06:46, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:BIO basic criteria: 'Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject'. User talk:Milarepanoakhali
Milarepanoakhali (by far the major contributor to the article) has repeatedly tried to disrupt this discussion by removing all content from this page and removing the AfD notice from the article.JBW (talk) 11:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC) [reply]
I am a new editor, there were some inadvertent and unintended mistakes. I apologise. Milarepanoakhali (talk) 22:20, 5 March 2022 (UTC) [reply]
Another mistake you are mistaking is repeatedly !voting "keep". You are allowed only one "keep" per AfD. I have struck out the repetitions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All references are from high quality sources, discussion on notability is not needed, the person is a notable academic as suggested by search results. many previous attempts at vandalising this page through repeated use of Afd tag . 06:50, 3 March 2022. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.217.230.116 (talk)
The person using the IP address 103.217.230.116 and several other IP addresses in the range 103.217.230.0/24 (who originally created the article, in draft space) has repeatedly tried to disrupt this discussion by means such as removing all content from this page and repeatedly removing the AfD notice from the article. Evidently what they mean by "attempts at vandalising this page through repeated use of Afd tag" is reverting of their own vandalism. JBW (talk) 11:13, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG or any criteria of WP:ACADEMIC. None of the references provided show significant coverage of the subject, and a large number are links to the subject's own work. PohranicniStraze (talk) 14:09, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG, I checked random sources, some are not working, and others are not clarifying his notability, so, it fails WP:N also.. — B203GTB (talk) • 16:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unfortunate to see such disruptions in AFD process. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:42, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Lacks WP:SIGCOV in independent sources. -- Ab207 (talk) 13:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I am always a little biased/partial towards academics/scientists. I have a soft corner for them, also WP:NACADEMIC is a little too difficult to pass. But this article feels just plain wrong. The subject fails WP:NACADEMIC, as well as WP:GNG. Feels like a vanity project. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Fixed article through removing reference to primary sources. Article passes WP:GNG- 'reliable' and 'independent of subject'. Coverage of academics from the global south has always been mostly non-existent on Wikipedia. This should be given a chance as it is representative of many significant new pages which have thus faced merciless deletion; See this musician and celebrity: Bhuban Badyakar. I wonder if an American or British internet celebrity page would face the same consequences? I also wonder why unsolicited AFD tags don't count as vandalism. Or is this more of a structural problem for any Wiki project? Is 'vandalism' like 'terrorism'? Evil for the majority, but brave and good for those whose interests are entwined. I see more than just Conflict of Interest in this present sorry state of affairs. Was an editor 7 years ago too, did not face these problems then. Pity editors from the global south are either not aware or not as active as their compeers. I request support, if there are any unbiased and totally objective editors/admins reading this. User talk:Milarepanoakhali — Preceding undated comment added 07:40, 6 March 2022 (UTC) [reply]
"Coverage of academics from the global south has always been mostly non-existent on Wikipedia."!! India is north of the Equator. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

comment added 07:40, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Kindly see Global North and Global South User talk:Milarepanoakhali
I think it passes WP:ACADEMIC. See Criteria- (1)The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed; (2)The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. User talk:Milarepanoakhali
  • KEEP I think it passes WP:ACADEMIC. See Criteria- (1)The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed; (2)The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. User talk:Milarepanoakhali
  • KEEP Also passes WP:BIO See- WP:BIO Additional Criteria: (1) The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times; or (2) The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field. User talk:Milarepanoakhali
  • Delete. Current doctoral students almost never have accumulated the impact for academic notability and from the Google Scholar results this case appears to be no exception, nor do we have the in-depth independent coverage needed for general notability. The sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry on display above should be an embarrassment to the subject, but in any case we decide AfDs based on the strength of policy-based arguments, not on numbers of participant names or the numbers of times the same participant repeats the same claims. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:51, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- An early career scholar who has not yet published much is probably NN. I might alter that view if a list of substantial published works was provided, but I see none at present. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See edits since nominations, most references to published works were removed by me, after other editors objected to them as being 'primary sources'. This can be reverted if there is a consensus. Milarepanoakhali (talk) Milarepanoakhali — Preceding undated comment added 19:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification. It is irrelevant how many published works there are. What destroys this AfD is that nobody has cited them. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:44, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Srisudhabhimireddy[edit]

Srisudhabhimireddy (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 actress.fails WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:52, 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 Days Inn China. Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Tan[edit]

Harry Tan (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. All the coverage I found is for namesakes and 2 gnews hits for his Chinese name. His industry awards don't really add much to notability. LibStar (talk) 23:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 17:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Days Inn China (with the history preserved under the redirect) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. Preserving the history will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future and will allow editors to reuse the content for other articles such as Days Inn China, which Harry Tan is the CEO of. Cunard (talk) 09:12, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Days Inn China. A ProQuest search brings up a few results, but they only quote him or mention him in passing while discussing the company itself. My searches in Chinese were similarly unsuccessful, although it's certainly possible that I missed something. I'm thus not seeing a GNG pass at the moment. I agree with Cunard that a redirect is a reasonable ATD: redirects are cheap, and Tan is already mentioned in the Days Inn China article. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:10, 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 no consensus. and none likely to emerge as it has been nearly a month. Consensus around these places is currently clear as mud. Star Mississippi 02:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Monroe, Kansas[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Monroe, Kansas (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 has changed about this except our understanding of the sources and the situation. This is still nothing more than a 4th class post office established in a no longer extant building, with the usual evidences thereof. I will not be surprised if evidence is produced of people "from" Monroe, or things "near" Monroe, but when it comes down to it GNIS no longer lists this place, and I really must insist on direct evidence of a "settlement" before acceding to the existence of this place as a notable thing. Mangoe (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    1. ) When the GNIS website was overhauled within the last year, it appears they removed ghost towns from the GNIS database. Just because we can't currently see that information doesn't automatically mean the community didn't exist in the prior GNIS database. Recently, I have been updating GNIS links for communities in western Kansas (working my way eastward), thus I'm very much aware of this problem. Some obvious notable ghost towns with plenty of other sources were removed from the GNIS list too. I haven't contacted GNIS yet to ask if they plan to restore this information, but it is on my TODO list.
    2. ) The google satellite view shows a nearby "Monroe Cemetery", which is enough proof for me this community likely existed.
  • KEEP • Sbmeirow • Talk • 18:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The database entry record 482325 said "locale". That does not mean a community. Please read the GNIS feature class definitions. "locale" in record 482325 gave zero support from the database for a claim of a settlement, and a "ghost town" has not been removed, since the database record wasn't supporting the claim of a ghost town in the first place. It was claiming a "locale" and it even tagged it as "(historical)" Uncle G (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • GNIS deletes a whole load of dubious locations and this doesn't cause any doubts in your mind that these places may not have actually existed? FOARP (talk) 08:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, the presence of a cemetery says nothing about the character of the place where those buried lived. Mangoe (talk) 05:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep subject meets WP:GEOLAND. see discussion at previous AFD. The nominator states that the only thing that has changed is "our understanding of the sources and the situation" but doesn't provide what actually has changed or its impact. Since nothing else has changed, the previous outcome should stand. Notability is not temporary.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Kansas Historical Society says post-office from 1871–1886, and Lippincott's from the time says:
    • "Monroe". Lippincott's Gazetteer of the World: A Complete Pronouncing Gazetteer Or Geographical Dictionary of the World. J.B. Lippincott & Company. 1880. p. 1454. a post-office of Lincoln co., Kansas about 25 miles W.N.W. of Salina
  • Lippincott's says "post-village" or "post-hamlet" for settlements. "post-office" means no more than just a post-office. This puts the lie to "is a ghost town". It never was a town, and no source supports this being a settlement of any kind.

    Uncle G (talk) 23:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • There was an operating post office there from 1871 to 1886, and the school district operated from 1873 until 1939. It's a place of note for history.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except that it isn't. If it were, people would be pointing to the history books that it is noted in, like Elizabeth N. Barr's History of Lincoln County, Kansas, which doesn't. Uncle G (talk) 09:28, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Since when have post offices been automatically notable? GNIS is also not reliable for whether a place is populated or not - and especially GNIS NEVER had a designation for "ghost towns". There is no actual evidence cited here of the existence of "ghost town" which is what this article is supposed to be about. If people want to make this article about the school district, well, they should go ahead and do so (though there's no coverage really of it), but the existence of a school district does not automatically mean there was a community with the same name. Schools can be anywhere, even outside a community. Obviously Google Maps is not a reliable source, and a cemetery does not automatically presuppose the existence of a community.

    I feel we're in the same situation we've been in on a few of these, with Keep !voters simply asserting that a community exists or existed based on zero actual evidence of an actual community. If there was or is a community, rather than disparate farms that used a particular post office, then that should be easy to evidence and we shouldn't be using things like the name of a cemetery on Google maps, or the existence of a school district at one point, to demonstrate it. You would expect, as an absolute minimum, reliable and independent coverage about that community in local press. FOARP (talk) 08:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Changed to On the fence based on the report of the place having been made an official township at some point (though it's not clear whether this was followed though on). FOARP (talk) 17:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • That detail is provided below and in the article itself.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I've made some additions including the history of the school, and added an 1883 county map which lists Monroe.[9] I've never been a fan of the mechanical way we seem to use "ghost town" nowadays. Monroe is probably best described as a former rural community. Due to the school and post office it had a rural identity as a community separate from other areas, thus the existence of the cemetery and mentions of weddings, funerals, and people residing in Monroe primarily in the 1870s and 1880s. There's enough to support the existence of this community sufficient to have an article. I think my view of notability for these articles is more broad than the nominator, who does do good work finding the ones that are truly not notable. I usually leave those AFDs alone. Btw, for any interested article creators, I discovered that Abram, Kansas was the original county seat in Lincoln County.--Milowent • hasspoken 17:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it is not enough. These are all still establishing locations, but none of them say anything about Monroe itself. They are all consistent with it being a 4th class post office and nothing more. Mangoe (talk) 05:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have to point out that the statement "none of them say anything about Monroe itself" is completely untrue. There are multiple sources providing details and many but not all of those details are in the article. This reference alone contains details, names, and locations of three separate civic events that took place in a short period of time including agreement to float a bond and also mentions the "citizens of Monroe" -- both indicators that the people in the area considered this a community at the time. While this source is cheesy by modern standards, it shows that there was some kind of interest in the community and multiple families. And this source provides historical details of the school district including prominent names of individuals in the area. Other sources include details about its phsysical location and surroundiung terrain. So YES we have details about Monroe itself.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:36, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Review of the sources:
    • GNIS - unreliable.
    • Kansas Historical Society list of post offices: Is a 404 for me right now. Even if it weren't, this is a one-line listing of a post-office, not significant coverage in a reliable independent source.
    • Lincoln county news - taken at face value this may show legal recognition. The problem is that, even if the report of the formation of a township is accurate, it appears not to have ever been acted on as no such township was ever shown on the map or discussed since.
    • Kansas State Atlas - simply a list of people showing some people as addressed at Monroe. As it was know practise to simply use the local post-office as an address, which the individual may have lived a long way from, this is not proof of a community.
    • Lincoln County Patriot 1874 - Report of a wedding that says nothing about an actual community. This is WP:MILL reportage and not significant coverage.
    • Monroe Notes: these are letters to the editor and/or community notices posted by the people concerned, not independent or reliable coverage.
    • History of Monroe School, Organized in 1873 - For all the talk of a "school district" it is very apparent that actually what is being talked about is a single school-house, with no mention of it being located in a community of any kind.
    • From Monroe - Again, this is a letter to the editor, not independent, reliable, significant coverage.
  • People really should know better than using letters to the editor (that clearly start "Mr. Editor") as source in encyclopaedic articles. For some reason sourcing standards are thrown out of the window in these Geostub cases. FOARP (talk) 15:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • FOARP, you are such a buzzkill!! (ETA: please don't take offense at my use of "buzzkill," i tend to get informally excited sometimes, i appreciate everyone's efforts here.) One of the sources I added in the past few hours shows that the county commissioners voted in 1873 to create a Monroe township -- yes, we don't know what happened to it, and its existence must have been brief, but unless you find me a reliable source that says this newspaper report is a fabrication, you are simply discounting everything that has been reported on Monroe as a community. I do not know why you and Mangoe have formed a Bielefeld conspiracy group about Monroe, Kansas, but it is very clear Monroe was a recognized community in the 1870s-1900s. Letters to the editor are not offered to prove whether some wedding occurred in 1884 or whatever, but simply as examples of people referring to Monroe regularly. I could add 50 more to the article but only used some illustrative examples. Granted, I know some editors think articles on rural evaporated American communities like this don't really merit articles, but that's a separate debate.--Milowent • hasspoken 16:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • More constructive comment perhaps. I just figured out what these "congressional townships" were[10] and No. 12 and 13, 6 west of the principal meridian (which is what the 1873 newspaper reports on), is what Colorado Township is in the 1878 map. So maybe there was a name change at play here.--Milowent • hasspoken 16:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not saying it was necessarily a fabrication, but if this place was ever an official township, where's all the things you would have expected to come with that? If it stopped being a town, then when is that supposed to have happened? Decisions can be taken and then not followed through. Notes about community events are nice and all, but they were the 19th century version of Facebook updates - people just sent notices to their local paper to say they were visiting or out of town or whatever so people could look them up - not independent coverage. On the fence about this one (and have updated my vote accordingly). FOARP (talk) 17:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • The internet didn't exist in the late 1880s. Many of the references in the discussion speak to verifiability, which is what was demanded.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's why we look things up in contemporary gazetteers like Lippincott's, which tell us outright that this is a post office. Uncle G (talk) 09:28, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Letters to the editor do not verify anything, as they are not independent of the subject or reliable. The society announcements columns found in local papers at that time (ie lists of “X person is visiting Y”) are also sourced to the people who the announcements are about and have the same issue. FOARP (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think we will be in perpetual disagreement on this one. I think you're convinced that the source in question is on the same scale as a modern-day letter to the editor; I'm convinced that the source in question is a report written to the editor for publication on the topic of civic matters. Did I interpret your stance properly?--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • I think in either case the situation is exactly the same. Look at the actual news stories published in the same newspapers - you can see that the stories on the front page of these newspapers are not phrased as letters to the editor, and instead are attributed to other news sources or unattributed (and therefore the work of the newspaper staff). The "Monroe Notes" stories are instead simply a letter to the editor from someone who does not appear to have been a professional journalist and not subject to fact-checking of any kind (and describe the people attending meetings at the school-house as of "Colorado township") - it therefore does not matter how you interpret it because it is not a reliable, independent source either way. FOARP (talk) 09:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                • No, in "either case" the situation is exactly the opposite. It's clear that you hold the position that the sources are not reliable. I hold the position that they are reliable. That is why I think we are in perpetual disagreement.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Paul McDonald - I'm honestly confused as to why you would think a letter to the editor (however you want to define that) would be a reliable source? How does it pass WP:NEWSORG when there won't be any fact-checking or editorial control? FOARP (talk) 10:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                    • As I explained above, because I don't think it's the equivalent of a modern-day "letter to the editor" and it's certainly not someone expressing opinions. It's a report that contains facts and details.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions:
    1. )What is the relationship between Monroe and Colorado Township? Colorado Township is still a populated (though not legally independent) township within Lincoln county. Looking again at this story, the letter to the editor from Rob Roy describes a meeting of the electors of Colorado township at the Monroe school-house regarding the construction of a railway through the township. On the same page is a "Sheriff's proclamation" announcing the construction of a railway through the town of Colorado by the Kansas Central R.R., that talks only about the town of Colorado. These are obviously the same thing but it is obvious that in 1882 there was no such thing as "Monroe township" as distinct to "Colorado township" and probably, like Milowent says, there is a naming issue here.
    2. )Is there really a "ghost town" called Monroe? What source says there is such a "ghost-town"? We have a photo of a single wrecked building and that's it.
    3. )What is the relationship between Monroe and the incorporated town of Beverly? Did Beverly simply absorb Monroe? It appears to have done so based on the addresses given south of the Saline river being still in Beverly. This story describes the location of the former Monroe school house only in relation to Beverly, being 2 1/2 miles away from it (i.e., just on the other side of the Saline river, in what now appears to be the town of Beverly).
  • At the very least I'm dubious that this is a ghost-town that we're talking about, rather than farm-land that is just part of Beverly now, and which used to have its own school house but now doesn't. FOARP (talk) 09:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • my input: (1) The community of Monroe (including the schoolhouse) was located within Colorado Township. The 1883 map I put in the article also includes a dot for 'Colorado' inside Colorado township, but most references to Colorado appear to just mean the township generally; maybe the 1873 push was really one to rename the township to Monroe; (2) I don't know what our rules are on the use of "ghost town", it seems to be overused in my mind for former U.S. communities. There's no "ghost town" as a regular person would think of it. (3) Beverly did not absorb Monroe, but the Beverly zip code seems to cover what is Monroe now, that is a pretty typical thing, this came up when I expanded Bucknum, Wyoming during its AFD.--Milowent • hasspoken 14:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Milowent - Thanks for the reply. I think where I'm going with this is that this may actually be better covered under a general article for Colorado township. At least we can show that was (and is) a real thing that was and is legally recognised, without having to infer the existence of a community from things like post-offices, school-houses, and cemeteries, or rely on letters to the editor (which appear to use Monroe and Colorado township inter-changeably) as sourcing. We could do a simple rename to Colorado, and just add a section on Beverly. What do you think Mangoe? FOARP (talk) 10:02, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 07:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Elizabeth N. Barr's 1908 History of Lincoln County, Kansas tells us outright (quoting Lincoln County school superintendent Alexander Thaddeus Biggs) that

    As early as 1867 or 1868, while still keeping an eye open for Indians, Mrs. Skinner gathered her own children, Everton, Alfred, and Bing, and two Ziegler boys, Eli and Frank, into her dugout and taught them 'without money and without price.'

    This isn't a "Monroe school". This is a schoolteacher teaching in her own house near to Monroe post office. This isn't a school district. The school districts were numbered, not named. Biggs proceeds to use a lot of numbers recounting the history.

    This isn't a "historic town" or a "ghost town", because there's no such town in either the history books or the gazetteers. This was sparsely settled (by colonists) frontier land at the time. The gazetteer, once again, tells us outright that this is a post office. This isn't a "historic post office" because it isn't actually in the history books, just in gazetteers. This isn't a school, because the school was Mrs Skinner's house.

    It's a post-office, people, like the one source that isn't being massaged and guessed at for underlying meaning outright says.

    Uncle G (talk) 09:28, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I find it rather saddening to see so much effort going into synthesizing something that never was, just for the sake of not deleting another Wikipedia-synthesized "community"/"area", based upon GNIS rubbish and a post office list in its initial revision, using things like the Lincoln County Examiner and the Lincoln County Patriot, discussing things like the Lincoln County board of commissioners, alongside the existence of a source that is a history of Lincoln County based upon information from the Lincoln County school superintendent; when Lincoln County, Kansas#History stands pretty much empty of anything specific to the county. One would think that the right place to write stuff, and not synthesize, would be obvious. It's even the right place to mention the post office. Uncle G (talk) 10:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uncle G, nothing has been synthesized and I find your accusation offensive. All sources have been referenced and provided.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:15, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't be sad Uncle G! As the primary expender of the effort here, I assure you I enjoyed learning more about the former rural community of Monroe Kansas than anyone not from that area has ever had. Alas, I am indeed guilty of citing things like Lincoln county newspapers from the late 1800s, and engaging in tawdry pursuits like researching contemporaneous sources of the day! And regarding the school, there was a school built within a few short years of starting in someone's house.[11] You disregard that fact in your fervency--there was a real building, the picture i just linked was the one built in 1883 after the prior one was destroyed in a storm. But it was called the Monroe School for decades, and yes, this name was used in such terrible things as Lincoln County newspapers. There's no synthesis beyond the normal assembling of sources we do every day. Now, surely, Lincoln County, Kansas#History, is bereft of content and perhaps some editor such as yourself will see fit to expand it. I for one will be content with my work on Monroe whether the article gets deleted or not. As I have been with countless other articles such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bucknum, Wyoming and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poplar, Iowa and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barberville, Rhode Island--Milowent • hasspoken 12:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on informed, nicely civil discussion above. --Doncram (talk) 16:17, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 17:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Lincoln County, Kansas: Merge to a new section called "Ghost Towns". The section can then be populated with information from the other ghost town pages which generally have less information than this page. Gusfriend (talk) 06:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are a lot of "locations" that no longer exist - towns, countries... There is evidence for this historic locale, and that should be enough. Also, we shouldn't be trying to judge the past through current eyes - someone teaching the children in her barn in a very rural area has indeed created a school and a de facto schoolhouse. That it later got an official designation does not diminish what it started out as. Lamona (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We rarely have kept "locales" unless there was a lot of material specifically about them, genreally in the form of articles/books that specifically address them as a subject. Also, "Name School Road" is a very common road name around here, but it doesn't imply that Name was a town or "community" or anything at all. Mangoe (talk) 05:12, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dani Gaíl[edit]

Dani Gaíl (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 footballer who has only made 4 substitute's appearances in the Segunda División (for less than 90 minutes of total play). WP:NFOOTBALL provides a presumption of notability based on that nominal amount of play, but there is longstanding consensus that this presumption is invalid when WP:GNG is comprehensively failed as it is here. I've searched English- and Spanish-language online sources and can only locate trivial coverage (e.g., database entries, match reports, injury reports, transfer announcements). Gaíl played during the Internet-era, so the fact that online archives of Spanish football magazine Mundo Deportivo contain no significant coverage strongly suggests we won't find anything but trivial coverage. Jogurney (talk) 17:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Spain. Shellwood (talk) 17:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:35, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with a handful of appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No source since 2020. It's a forgotten article, and will remain forgotten, as I haven't found any relevant facts about the player. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 03:43, 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! 22:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Human Hibachi[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. All references come from self-published blogs and/or are interviews and therefore are not independent. Also, this article received significant contributions from a known sock-puppeteer MikePlant1. Anton.bersh (talk) 16:48, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep did you Google before you listed this erroneously and try and improve the article? There is about 20 independent reviews on this movie (as indicated by Donaldd23 when you added the notability tag over a week ago.) Tons of Google results. Not “self published” but top horror sites and reviewers. ValidatedKing (talk) 19:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Nominator clearly hasn't read the Wikipedia guidelines for Reliable Sources as it pertains to Horror sites. [12], as the so-called "blog" reviews they mentioned are listed as acceptable per Wikipedia's standards. HorrorNews.net is a RS, and it has a review for this film (which has been cited in the article before nomination). Horror Society is also listed as a RS, and it has a review for this film (which, also, has been cited in the article before nomination.). This article pass WP:NFILM based on that and should never have been nominated. DonaldD23 talk to me 20:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment not to mention the pophorror.com one too which is listed here too. [13]ValidatedKing (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is enough information and credible sources out there to separate this topic. Lord of Fantasy (talk) 07:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Per WP:HORROR/S, HorrorNews.net is a RS, as is Horror Society. The article could of course be better laid out and such, but AfD is not meant to be cleanup for articles that already pass notability guidelines. I'm going to give the nom the benefit of the doubt that they weren't aware of horror sourcing - it is pretty much a niche area. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:13, 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 Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany#Eastward expansion of NATO. So actually this is a "merge" consensus, but I'm implementing it as a redirect, allowing interested editors to conduct the merger from the history. Why? The creator admits that they made up the title, the content is barely sourced, and, as it has been noted, the notion the article conveys that there was some sort of agreement is part of the Russian justification for the ongoing invasion of Ukraine. Which means, for us Wikipedians, that the existence of the article is problematic on WP:NPOV grounds unless somebody manages to reference it much better through reliable secondary sources. Therefore, so as not to prolong the stay of this material in mainspace, I'm redirecting the page before the merger (if any) is completed. Sandstein 12:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Baker-Gorbachev Pact[edit]

Baker-Gorbachev Pact (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 idea behind this article is that, in 1990, Mikhail Gorbachev and U.S. Secretary of State James Baker made some sort of secret pact regarding NATO and eastern Europe. While it is understandable why Gorbachev had the impression that commitments had been made, no "pact" exists with text or signatures that we could link to. Sources used on this article also refer to it as a myth. The creating of this article this week is also likely a product of recentism, as the idea of a "broken promise" is central to pro-Putin propaganda in his war on Ukraine. There are also ongoing discussions at Talk:NATO and Talk:Enlargement of NATO. Patrick Neil, oѺ∞/Talk 16:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep
Why would you erase this? This was something historical, that actually happened. It may be used by Russia or whomever as propaganda (and calling something propaganda is a matter of subjective debate), but that doesn't make it less true, as using Holodomor as anti-Russian propaganda wouldn't mean it didn't happen. Actually, given the current references to this, it makes it more relevant to shed light on it.
I have used various different sources in the article that back the existance of this pact:
I could agree in changing the name of the article (I didn't use the word 'Agreement' and I was unsure whether to use 'Pact'). Perhaps this should be an article on 9, February 1900 Memorandum of Baker-Gorbachev conversation on OTAN enlargement or something like that. Nevertheless, when I named the article, I looked for other wikipedia articles on Pacts and saw that even an exchange of notes can become a pact (a pact is not always signed, which most certanly could become then a Treaty: pacts can even be verbal, or, as I said, a simple exchange of notes: see Pact of Cartagena. Should we delete this article as well?
Saying this is Russian Propaganda when I'm referencing the original declassified document doesn't hold as an argument. I think I have supplied enough sources and even concedeed a change in the name of the article. Jasandia (talk) 17:36, 2 March 2022 (CET)
Just a quick reply to two things. We do have an article on the Two Plus Four Agreement, which was the topic that James Baker and Mikhail Gorbachev were discussing in the memo you link to. Many individual conversations went into negotiating that agreement, but I don't think every conversation between negotiators deserves its own Wikipedia article. So I'm not sure changing the name changes that the substance isn't on its own notable. We already have a section on that Two Plus Four page that discusses this issue, and I think that's a fine place for this sort of information. Thanks-- Patrick Neil, oѺ∞/Talk 18:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but while the Two Plus Four Agreement shares Germany as a topic of the Baker-Gorbachov pact, as the very section you mention says: "The treaty does not mention future NATO-membership of other countries", but these specific 'negotiations' or 'pact' (verbal but recorded) did. And those assurances, not Germany full accession to NATO and/or unification, are a central topic in current events, so I thing it is important to have a specific article on this. A topic of which historians and journalists are still unearthing things as of 2022 (see the Der Spiegel reference). And for sure, there should be at least a line about this in anything related to NATO expansion (it is a very important historical matter, given that NATO was later expanded Eastwards and this has repeatedly caused tension). I would gladly add the sentence that this concessions to the USSR were 'alleged' or are 'disputed' if that was the case, but we have declassified memo, how can you dispute such a solid OG source--- Jasandia (talk) 19:36, 2 March 2022 (CET).
Right, the Two Plus Four Agreement doesn't include any language about NATO enlargement... because there wasn't anything that was agreed to. That's kind of the point, that there isn't a piece of paper with signatures and official seals from 1990 saying NATO will never add more countries. And the fact that, clearly, other countries did join NATO means that whatever this was, it wasn't upheld by anyone and just makes it more clear that it's not a pact, and wasn't an influence in 1999, or 2004, or the other years that counties freely joined NATO. Obviously historians and political scientists have an open and academic debate about how seriously we should view the elements, like NATO expansion, that were discussed (and no one is saying they weren't discussed) but didn't end up in the final text of the 1990 treaty. If you go to that "one inch" line in the declassified document you keep mentioning, the important part is the sentence right after. "We could have discussions in a two plus four context that might achieve this." But they didn't, they didn't achieve an agreement with anything to do with future NATO membership. So I think the Two Plus Four Treaty gets a Wikipedia article, but I don't think that pieces that didn't make it in the treaty are notable enough to be highlighted in the same way. Does that make sense? Lastly, about Pact of Cartagena, other stuff exists is a problematic argument here on AfDs.-- Patrick Neil, oѺ∞/Talk 20:02, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Merge
This matter is described in reliable sources. It may have gained interest due to recent events, but that doesn't preclude existence of an article describing the matter. The title must be changed however - a "Pact" is a formal agreement, full stop. This never was; many promises were made, many assurances were made...maybe (see Gorbachev's vaccilation over the decades) - it being codified is necessary for it to be a "Pact".
I'm going to be doing a little bit of copyediting on the article, as it does appear to have been written hastily, and it needs some refinement. But this is a matter worthy of an article in Wikipedia. WP is littered with thousands of articles about essentially non-notable athletes, e.g. David Clemens - no offense intended to Mr. Clemens. If we can support the existence of articles about fairly trivial subjects, we can support an article about this matter. Anastrophe (talk) 19:39, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Upon reflection, I agree with user Metropolitan90. It's a fascinating subject but it is ancillary to other 'larger' subjects. Anastrophe (talk) 09:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have, in the interim, renamed the article to Baker-Gorbachev Negotiations, as the previous name was simply nonsensical; a pact is a formal agreement. What is described are assurances and promises during negotiations, with nothing committed to a contract. Still, it's an inaccurate title; the discussions involved many more than just Baker and Gorachev. This will suffice until the article is merged elsewhere.Anastrophe (talk) 19:19, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany. This "pact" was not a formal -- or, as far as I can tell, informal -- agreement but rather a proposal put forth as part of a negotiation. Based on the unclassified portions of the conversation, although Baker proposed that a unified Germany be part of NATO with NATO not expanding any further east than the eastern border of Germany, Gorbachev did not specifically agree to the proposal but only agreed to think about it. No agreement -- no pact. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep
The article proposed for deletion refers to events with strong support from both reliable primary sources (the cited National Security Archive) as well from reliable secondary sources (the cited article of Der Spiegel, the one of NYT and many more). Deleting the page would be a strong violation of the WP:NPOV policy. The author proposing deletion failed to comment on why the cited sources should not be considered reliable. Morgoonki (talk) 23:51, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not supported by sources when it's very name does not appear in any of them. Keepcalmandchill (please ping in responses) (talk) 12:03, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Morgoonki, just want to reply regarding sourcing. Having sources, even from reliable places, doesn't equal notability. Take that New York Times article from January, I think it does give a good summary of the issue over the last 30 years and why it's still such a talking point. But I think if you read it, it debunks the idea that an agreement (or "pact") was made, and calls it "a selective account of what really happened, used to justify Russian aggression for years." Likewise, the Foreign Affairs article prominently says "new evidence shows that the United States never actually made such a pledge." So yes, those are "sources", but they're saying that the topic that this article is about is doesn't actually exist. Wikipedia doesn't typically have articles about things that don't exist, but perhaps you can make an argument that the misconception itself deserves an article?-- Patrick Neil, oѺ∞/Talk 14:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again... It's not a 'reliable' source like New York Times, but one of the source is a U.S. Memorandum... And I have added here a link with several more official documents to expand an article on the assurances and how US policy gradually changed as the Soviet empire collapsed -document 13- (and how Gorbachov even proposed that the USSR joined NATO -document 19-): https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early This huge investigation with primary sources reveal how the US gradually changed its view as the Soviet Union grew weaker. As I have stated bellow, perhaps we should change the article's name and use 'assurances', which is a word that keeps repiting in primary and secondary sources (I listed some bellow) Jasandia (talk) 17:40, 3 March 2022 (CET)
  • Delete
No references in sources to a "Baker-Gorbachev Pact". The term seems to be a pure invention and therefore clearly unsuitable in Wikipedia.Keepcalmandchill (please ping in responses) (talk) 12:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's true, and I have admited, that the name might be changed, but from that to delition there is a big step as there was an actual meeting between U.S. and Soviet Union and a memorandum confirms assurances were given to the President of the USSR (whose internationally and legally recognised successor state, by the way, is Russia). I must say, I keep thinking this was a pact, even if it was classified during a time, verbal or written, given the top position of both superpower officials. A lot of pacts are like that, mostly when they are refiring to third parties not present in the reunion (NATO or countries such as Poland, Hungary, etc.).
In any case, I think we could find a compromise, seing there is not consensus on deletion, an go for a change of name and even expand on the article further than february 1990.
The way I see it, the word 'assurance' is the one that keeps repiting in all the domcuments (documents, primary and secondary) as well as other articles that do exist on this topic (look for soviet+assurances+baker+gorbavhec and you'll see). Some examples:
My sugestion: something like:
  • Baker-Gobachev security assurances
  • US assurances to the Soviet Union on NATO enlargement
Jasandia (talk) 17:31, 3 March 2022 (CET)
  • Merge (though there isn't a lot of new information)
I was the first to wonder whether this article should exist and to hint at deletion; my reasoning can be read here, and I can summarise it in the following lines: the article was created within the immediate context of the current invasion — in a form of WP:RECENTISM which is making us look into a historical event from the perspective of an ongoing war which may or may not be an indirect implication of what may or may not have happened at this alleged 'pact' —, and it did not tell the full story — making it seem that the US and the USSR made a promise (which wasn't put in writing and signed, by the way; it was only discovered recently in declassified documents) which the West then broke by allowing 14 countries east of Germany to join NATO (which understandably angered Russia and which justifies Putin's ongoing invasion), while ignoring the fact that the real agreement (the one that was written and signed) was actually the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany (a.k.a. 2+4 Agreement), which did not mention the issue of NATO expansion east of Germany.
Having said that, upon discussing this deletion, we must begin by understanding that the subject of the article is a conversation! It was not a pact or an agreement; it was just one of dozens or perhaps hundreds of bilateral conversations (some more secret than others, some declassified and others not yet) that must have taken place in preparation for the writing and signing of the 2+4 Agreement! Does a conversation and a preliminary intention for the text of a treaty have sufficient relevance to have an article of its own on Wikipedia (especially when that intention was not put in practice in the treaty)? In my opinion, no; that would be an unreasonable criterion for the creation of articles: what matters most is what was agreed to in the end, not what might have been agreed to. (Changing the name, as others have suggested, does not fix the problem of the lack of notability inherent to this topic.)
Now, what about the content of the article (i.e., that Baker and Gorbachev, in a closed meeting whose contents were declassified a few years ago, may have agreed that the final text of the 2+4 Agreement should state that NATO would not expand east)? Does that deserve mention on Wikipedia? Yes, but not in an article of its own; rather, properly contextualised within the article about the treaty about which these Baker-Gorbachev conversations really were. We can certainly add to that article, in the relevant section, a few lines or a paragraph stating exactly this 'pact', within the context of explaining that it had no practical implication in the treaty. It's just that; there isn't a lot more new information in this article under discussion that isn't already in the article about the treaty (except perhaps for the picture!).
Therefore, I propose merging into Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany#Eastward expansion of NATO. It seems the most reasonable option. LongLivePortugal (talk) 23:57, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what there is to merge since that article already covers the topic in much more detail than here. Keepcalmandchill (please ping in responses) (talk) 03:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Keepcalmandchill: I was thinking about the actual negotiation between Baker and Gorbachev: the informal agreement is not relevant for it to have an article of its own (as argued above), but it should be somewhere. One or two lines should do — something like: "In one of the preliminary conversations for the signing of the treaty, Baker and Gorbachev addressed the possibility of preventing NATO from expanding eastward, in a private conversation held on 9 February 1990, as declassified documents reveal. This idea ended up not being reflected on the text of the signed treaty." If this is such a short addition that it does not technically make sense to call it a 'merge', then let my !vote be considered as 'delete', because I really don't see what else there is to be merged; but the addition of these sentences was what I had in mind when I wrote 'merge'. In practice, I think 'merging' and 'deleting' are basically almost the same outcome here. LongLivePortugal (talk) 00:08, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect, either into Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany or Enlargement of NATO. I've tagged Baker-Gorbachev Pact with {{R from incorrect title}} given there was apparently no actual pact or certainly not an undisputed one. I think that resolves the objection that triggered the deletion request. But as a matter of length and overlapping articles, it does seem like readers would be better served by expanding existing articles more before creating a new one. If more information is created due to future events on this topic, maybe it will need to get spun out once again, but it might also become known by a different name in the meantime, which would suggest a better title. (Even with the current title, the capital "N" in "Negotiations" is probably incorrect?) In any case, I'm glad there are editors working on this topic of immense current public interest, so thanks, everyone, for that. -- Beland (talk) 23:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as suggested above or delete. The was no such official "pact". My very best wishes (talk) 05:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Multiple reliable cited sources in the article state that it occurred. You’re entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts. 47.186.234.162 (talk) 21:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That the negotiations occurred is not in question. That it was a legal pact is a falsehood, upon which the article was created. Indeed, facts are what matter. Anastrophe (talk) 21:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. A falsehood exploited by Putinist propaganda. In fact, NATO, as an official organization, did not promise anything at all. My very best wishes (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First of all a Pact is not a Treaty, and it well can be even verbal between two leaders. And it's not precisely unheard of of classified pacts between wuperpowers affeting third parties without those parties being present.
In any case, no one is even suggesting that this must remain as a Pact. Someone already changed the article to 'negotiations'. They existed and are historically relevant! This 'assurances' have been discussed by politicians like Gorvachev, historians and the media for years! And this is topic diserves an article on its own, even if we changed the name to US assurances to Russia on NATO expansion or even 'Controversy on NATO expansion' or something similar.
That way we could expand it to more than February 1990 and even add a section of 'use as Russian propaganda' or whatever. Because this is a topic far larger and continued in time than a Treaty affecting Germany reunification. It doesn't make any sense simply merging this there. That is not where this belongs. My opinion remains: keep and change name, perhaps to US assurances to Russia on NATO expansion and expand it. Jasandia (talk) 18:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article appears to be reliably sourced with primary declassified documents. Many other minor political agreements have their own articles. 47.186.234.162 (talk) 21:18, 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 delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Rios (musician)[edit]

Carlos Rios (musician) (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:MUSICBIO, with Rios mostly mentioned in passing or listed in a group of musicians. I found only one little-seen article dedicated to him in depth at the Jazz Guitar Today online magazine. Starting in September 2021, Thedailyneedle worked on the initial draft article which failed AfC four times because of notability problems. Thedailyneedle stopped editing in November, and in December the account Theqtipfont was created, working on the same material. Two months ago, Theqtipfont blanked the draft and created the biography in mainspace, despite ongoing concerns about notability. Binksternet (talk) 16:28, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:37, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

International Technology Institute[edit]

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

No links. Also, I didn’t uncover anything good enough by searching on internet. WP:NCORP policy is not realized. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 14:35, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Knoa Software[edit]

Knoa Software (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 realising WP:NCORP. I wanted to first use CSD but a discussion would be better I think. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 14:32, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pair of Thieves[edit]

Pair of Thieves (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 see reliable sources discussing company to the length that it can realized WP:NCORP policy. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 14:31, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LatestOne[edit]

LatestOne (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)

E-commerce comapny’s marketing post. Not realising WP:NCORP policy. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 14:29, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 14:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dhani (company)[edit]

Dhani (company) (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)

Company page doesn’t reach WP:NCORP policy of Wikipedia. There are many links. But, they all look marketing posts. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 14:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 14:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Business, Internet, and India. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: as per WP:LISTED and WP:THREE. Publicly-traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges are notable if sources include independent analyst reports - here, here, and here (in page 63). RPSkokie (talk) 08:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting for now that they are credit reports, not independent analyst reports. In India too, companies themselves choose and pay credit rating agencies; thus have independence issues. Pertinently, one of the CRAs you link, Brickwork Ratings, is being investigated by the regulator for lack of independence. Hemantha (talk) 12:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hemantha That’s a valid point, but in that sense, then every other CRA lacks independence, because the other two CRAs, which are linked as references are also investigated by the same regulator in the past for multiple reasons CARE Ratings and Credit Suisse. In general, my understanding is credit reports can be treated as independent analyst reports if the agency which is preparing them is independent of the listed company and names of analysts and their affiliations are clearly mentioned in the reports. Again, it all depends on how we look at these listed companies, which may vary from country to country and regulators to regulators. RPSkokie (talk) 15:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you please show me the language you have used here ‘’Publicly-traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges are notable if sources include independent analyst reports’’. I didn’t find this language in any policy page. None of the links here are discussing about what this company do and is just discussing their stocks and values. So, according to me, it is not following WP:NCORP. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 13:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NCORP and Laptopinmyhands listing on an exchange anywhere is not automatically a gift to have an article here. Bearian (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:LISTED according to the three independent analyst reports I provided here. analysts report 1 written by independent authors, analysts report 2 written by independent authors (already used in the article), and analysts report 3 written by independent authors. Also, the following academic articles significantly cover the company - academic article 1, academic article 2. To further strengthen my support, attaching some other reliable citations (WP:RS) which qualify this article towards establishing notability. - Indian Express article by staff writers, The Hindu article by a staff writer, BloombergQuint article by a staff writer and CNBC article. Akevsharma (talk) 09:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We already talked about credit reports not being analyst reports. So those got nothing to do with notability. Any proof that these academic articles are written by independent authors? The findings are totally in favour of the company. Also note ‘convenience sample’ in methodology which implies it is not a representative sample and findings are not generalisable. Few academics writing about a company doesn’t mean company become notable. All media articles are about a single event fraud case. There are no proper articles that really explains what the company is and what it does. Also note, the person who created this article, Dhani is only second article. First is also suspected for WP:COI. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 15:46, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe Laptopinmyhands have not opened the links that I mentioned above. The reports that I have shared are the actual analyst's reports, not the credit reports and out of 3, only 1 has been used in the article as a reference. Regarding your view on academic articles, please refer WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:RS/AC. An article from an academic journal always has better acceptance because they are backed by an editorial board and the process such as peer-review, blind-peer review, etc. All we should care about is avoiding original research, especially about making blanket statements.
"The person who created this article, Dhani is only second article"? If WP:NPOV is violated, then we should take this information into account. As of now, no such violations have been observed. If anyone can point it by analyzing the edits of the creator of this article, then it will surely benefit this discussion.
Let us remove the ambiguity by following WP:SIRS and evaluating individual sources separately. Also, let's find whether they independently meet the four criteria below to determine if a source qualifies towards establishing notability. Akevsharma (talk) 01:16, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The summarization of the analysis is put in the following table:

Source Link Significant? Independent? Reliable? Secondary? Pass/Fail Notes
Independent analyst report (not credit report) Link Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY WP:LISTED. For disclaimer and disclosure, check page 77. This report is used as reference in the article and it significantly explains what the company is and what it does, check page 63.
Independent analyst report (not credit report) Link Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY WP:LISTED. For disclaimer and disclosure, check page 11. This report is not used as reference in the article.
Independent analyst report (not credit report) Link Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY WP:LISTED. Disclaimer and disclosure behind paywall. This report is not used as reference in the article.
Academic article Link Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY WP:SCHOLARSHIP, Material such as research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. This paper is not used as reference in the article.
Academic article Link Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY WP:SCHOLARSHIP, Material such as research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. This paper is used as reference in the article.
Academic article Link Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY WP:SCHOLARSHIP, Material such as research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. This reference is used as reference in the article via HeinOnline-Wikipedia Library. This paper is used as reference in the article.
Academic article Link Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY WP:SCHOLARSHIP, Material such as research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. This reference is used as reference in the article via HeinOnline-Wikipedia Library. This paper is used as reference in the article.
News article (The Hindu) Link Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY WP:RS/WP:RSP/WP:THEHINDU, Event 1: PAN mishandling. This news article is used as reference in the article.
News article (The Financial Express (India)) Link Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY WP:RS/WP:RSP/WP:INDIANEXP, Event 2: Insider trading. This news article is used as reference in the article.
News article (The Times of India) Link Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Question? WP:RS/WP:RSP/WP:TOI, Event 3: Sexual harassment of women doctor. This news article is used as reference in the article.
Total qualifying sources 9
There are multiple qualifying sources that meet the notability requirements. Some are used in the article and some are not.

Akevsharma (talk) 01:39, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

will respond to remaining. But the scholarship essay says ‘reputed peer reviewed journals’. So to use this claim, please show how these journals are reputed. A long table without proper evidence is misleading, I feel. I am still not on board with these ‘analysts report’. Will let others chime in. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 02:50, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment of journals (used in above WP:SIRS table) for reputability and notability;

Journal Name Links Indexing Reliable? Secondary? Used in the article Pass/Fail Notes
Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry Source Link ScopusLink Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Journal is notable as per WP:NJOURNALS.
Jus Corpus Law Journal Source Link 1, Source Link 2 HeinOnline, Link Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Journal is notable as a source because it is indexed with HeinOnline database which can be accessed at The Wikipedia Library. The Library allows active editors to access a wide range of collections of paywalled reliable sources for free!
Global Journal of Engineering Science and Researches Source Link Not indexed with known bibliographic database Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Red XN Journal is not notable
Total qualifying sources 2
Out of 3 journals, 2 are notable enough to be used for referencing purposes

Akevsharma (talk) 15:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • agreed on notability because of last table. What happens in this case? Can nomination be reverted? Laptopinmyhands (talk) 21:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per source table provided by Akevsharma. JoyStick101 (talk) 05:04, 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. ✗plicit 14:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Books Centre[edit]

Indian Books 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)

WP:NCORP is not realized here. No good sources. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 14:17, 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. ✗plicit 14:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Veer savarkar all india sea swimming competition[edit]

Veer savarkar all india sea swimming competition (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 just declined an A7 speedy deletion because being run by the government of Gujarat in India sounded like a claim of significance to me, but I couldn't find many independent sources after a quick search. Someone more familiar with the notability of Indian events needs to assess whether this meets the notability guidelines Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LauraFair (talk) 04:17, 4 March 2022 (UTC) Delete: The information is not sufficient and the place doesn't seem to have any historical or municipal significance.[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:47, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Joy (director)[edit]

Prince Joy (director) (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 director. Lacks in depth-independent coverage. The first source is just a profile with no coverage, the second source rather discusses his only film, but not about him. The third source is in a foreign language which I don't know, but with the help of a translator, the title reads "Director Prince Joy interview." And the content is indeed an interview, so is a primary source, and adds nothing to prove significance. The last & fourth source is another interview titled "The film was destined to be made, says Prince Joy of his debut film ‘Anugraheethan Antony." And as you might've guessed, discusses his film, but not him (also doesn't matter as it's a PS). IMO the director might become notable enough in the future with some in-depth-independent coverage from reliable pubs, but as of now, evaluating the sources given, the subject is fo shizz not notable under any criteria. If it's a case of Sources Exist, then one is free to list them here. Tame (talk) 07:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:20, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prem Pandey (actor)[edit]

Prem Pandey (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)

Non Notable actor Aloolkaparatha (talk) 11:29, 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! 05:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'm not quite seeing notability here, at least not yet. Pandey's appearances have all been in secondary/supporting roles, so invoking WP:NACTOR's "significant roles in multiple notable films" criterion would probably be a stretch. I don't think the awards mentioned move the needle too much either. Of the sources cited, the only one that discusses Pandey in depth (not just a passing mention) is this one. While it seems to be from a reliable outlet, the story seems to be mostly sourced to an interview with Pandey himself, raising independence questions. Moreover, a single source is not enough to meet the GNG, and my attempts to search for coverage in English and Nepali have come up empty-handed. While Pandey may become notable in the future, I don't think he's crossed that threshold yet, although I'm glad to reconsider if there are additional Nepali-language sources that I've missed. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think redirect to this would be a better option than delete. If he is unable to pass these criteria. Is award is enough to pass the notability criteria except of GNG. Fade258 (talk) 05:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Lists like that one generally only include notable people, so if Pandey isn't notable he should be removed from the list (and thus there'd be no point to a redirect). The awards probably aren't enough on its own: neither qualifies as the sort of "well-known and significant award or honor" that contributes to notability. I'd be fine with draftifying the article as an alternative to deletion, if you'd like, since there's a chance that he'll become notable in future. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:22, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But he played a significant role in notable tele-films/setial of Nepal in Tito Satya and Jire Khursani. Fade258 (talk) 05:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:09, 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! 22:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cobrex Trans[edit]

Cobrex Trans (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)

Tiny airline that has one plane (they had two in the past?). The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. I don't think all transportation companies, even airlines, are automatically notable, and this one seems to be quite unremarkable. For a Romanian company, they don't even have an entry on the Romanian Wikipedia, that's another red flag. Creator is blocked, and has speedy deletion notices for presumably similar busiensses, Tayaran Jet and Air Ban among others. (Still remain: ALK Airlines with 4 planes and Fly2Sky Airlines with 3). Thoughts? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is (was) a company/organization therefore WP:NCORP applies. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails NCORP. HighKing++ 16:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:05, 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 merge to Cattle There is no consensus to delete the content, in fact a strong consensus that the material should be kept. Whether it should be merged (or technically re-merged) or remain on its own is one for an editorial decision but as this discussion stands, the merges are more clear on why this should not be a standalone/content fork but rather re-incorporated. Star Mississippi 02:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taurine cattle[edit]

Taurine cattle (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 as it is currently is a duplicate/WP:POVFORK of Cattle. The cattle article currently begins Cattle (Bos taurus or Bos primigenius taurus), also known as taurine cattle, Eurasian cattle, or European cattle, are large, domesticated, cloven-hooved, herbivores. Indicating that the scope of the article is taurine cattle excusively, rather than Zebu, which we have a separate article for. If people are unhappy with the scope of the cattle article and think it should cover both taurine cattle and Zebu, and that a separate article should be dedicated to taurine cattle, then this is something that should be put to an RfC on the Cattle talkpage. In its current form, this stub is a pointless fork that is not useful to the reader. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the purposes of assessing consensus, I support merging as an alternative to deletion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - For 21 years (until last August) the scope of the cattle article was all domesticated cattle (not just taurine cattle). A single editor changed the scope in August without discussion. There is unanimous consensus on the Cattle talk page to change that article's scope back to all domesticated cattle. Rather than deleting the taurine cattle article, we should be moving content to it from the cattle article. Kaldari (talk) 04:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've reverted the scope of the cattle article to cover all domesticated cattle as it did originally. Kaldari (talk) 05:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge No need for a separate page. Reywas92Talk 15:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Kaldari removed their comment here, but to answer it anyway, the Zebu is a separate species, but moreover this article is just a duplication of the main article. If there were something substantively different about this subtopic with enough unique content to warrant a separate page then sure, but there's no need to split this just to be redundant. Reywas92Talk 18:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge This article 1) is not really full enough for a separate article 2) is about half about domesticated cattle 3) the cattle article needs this information to be complete. Lamona (talk) 17:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As per Kaldari. —  Jts1882 | talk  10:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:59, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There are several hits in GSholar using this term, some about sequenncing the genome. Seems notable enough. Oaktree b (talk) 18:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes of course it exists as the nominator states. The issue is that literally everything on this page is already on the main article, with the genome sequencing you mention at Cattle#Genetics and the line on ancestry from aurochs at Cattle#Domestication_and_husbandry. Per WP:NOPAGE, we do not need a WP:REDUNDANT WP:DUPLICATE article even when a subtopic would also be considered notable. The main article can cover this without a subpage that overlaps it. Even worse would be removing content from the main article forcing readers to go to another when this is part fo the main topic. Reywas92Talk 20:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I think the main "cattle" article should cover all three cattle (taurine, zebu, and Sanga cattle), but mainly cover the taurine cattle. My reason is that the generic term "cattle" or "cows" usually refers to taurine cattle. 47.132.116.59 (talk) 22:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the article should stand, in the same way that articles on zebu and sanga cattle would also be appropriate. The more general cattle article should focus on the modern hybrids. Jmbranum (talk) 19:22, 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. ✗plicit 14:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Air Tahoma Flight 587[edit]

Air Tahoma Flight 587 (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)

Tragic but not notable aviation accident. WP:NOTNEWS applies. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Headphase (talk) 00:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While tragic, it's not notable per WP:NOTNEWS. Doesn't meet GNG, most sources are primary, and no long-term significance shown by reliable sources. BilCat (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please clarify which of the sources are primary (or otherwise invalid for GNG?). As far as I can tell, they are all reliable and secondary in nature (except for the first which is tertiary). Additionally, WP:NOTNEWS is comprised of four points (original reporting, breaking news reports, who's who, gossip/diary). I'm not sure which of these are applicable in this instance. Headphase (talk) 01:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't respond to WP:BLUDGEONING. Sorry. BilCat (talk) 01:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaning delete. There are the NTSB reports, but NTSB investigates and reports on all crashes. The AV Herald appears to be a single-person site (Simon Hradrecky) if I'm reading that right. I can't get to the CircleVille Herald article, but that is a very limited source. The Columbus Dispatch is a short news article. The only other possible RS is the Flight Global article, but I can't see that one either so I know know if it's just a pro forma crash news item or if it gives this crash some deeper attention. (The site reports on crashes, but I can't find anything saying what their editorial policy is - all crashes, selected crashes?) Lamona (talk) 01:41, 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 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! 06:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Smile Fish[edit]

Smile Fish (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 yet notable for inclusion into wikipedia. Not enough reliable independent media coverage. Bash7oven (talk) 12:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:25, 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. Sandstein 12:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jami Laine[edit]

Jami Laine (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)

Microstub sourced only to online databases. —S Marshall T/C 12:15, 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 Moot. Already speedily deleted by Liz for the reason "Multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria G4, G11". Sandstein 12:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cornelius Keagon (humanitarian)[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. The sources in 1, 2, and 3 are unreliable and probably self-written while reference 4 makes no mention of the subject. Just an attempt to make the subject look notable all together. Jamiebuba (talk) 12:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete = appears to be speedy deleted already. Bearian (talk) 21:11, 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. Sandstein 12:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kasireddy Durgareddy Co-operative Junior College[edit]

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

WP:MILL institution. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. The WP:NSCHOOL criteria have been made much stricter since the previous deletion discussion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:05, 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. Sandstein 12:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

D.A.V. High School, Tandur[edit]

D.A.V. High School, Tandur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:MILL institution. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. The WP:NSCHOOL criteria have been made much stricter since the previous deletion discussion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:04, 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. Sandstein 12:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John R. Drake (California politician)[edit]

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

Meets neither WP:GNG nor WP:NPOL. Onel5969 TT me 12:01, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and California. Shellwood (talk) 12:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. KidAd • SPEAK 18:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete an unelected candidate for public office. Being on an essentially free-for-all recall ballot for governor is not a sign of notability. If he wins the assembly race he will be notable, but not until then.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Failed candidates do not meet WP:NPOL. Reads like campaign literature with plenty of puffery, etc. Agree with Johnpacklambert about re-assessing/re-creation if he wins in November. Bkissin (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • At this point we do not even know he will still be on the ballot come November. He may be elimanated in the primary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:15, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete falls incredibly short of WP:NPOL. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:06, 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. consensus is he meets ANYBIO, COMPOSER and possibly the GNG. Star Mississippi 02:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Jost[edit]

Christian Jost (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 person. Jax 0677 (talk) 00:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Without knowledge of German, I can not conclude that the references above are valid. Furthermore, this article should be improved or redirected if it is to remain. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not mean to be inflammatory, but why should your lack of relevant language skills determine why this article gets deleted or not? In any case, there are plenty of English sources about his oeuvre. Atchom (talk) 01:25, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep WP:ANYBIO criterion 1. The Ernst von Siemens Music Prize is prestigious ("the Nobel Prize of music" is maybe a tad overdramatic, but it clearly is "a well-known and significant award or honor".) Atchom (talk) 23:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • In addition, this passes WP:COMPOSER (2) "Has written musical theatre of some sort (includes musicals, operas, etc.) that was performed in a notable theatre that had a reasonable run, as such things are judged in their particular situation, context, and time" and (4) "Has written a composition that has won (or in some cases been given a second or other place) in a major music competition not established expressly for newcomers". Atchom (talk) 05:59, 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 albeit weakly. Consensus is that there isn't reliable source based coverage to establish notability, and that a merger is not a valid ATD in this case due to the criteria of the List article. Star Mississippi 02:23, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inter (typeface)[edit]

Inter (typeface) (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)

De-PROD'd by creator. Links added do not constitute reliable significant coverage in my opinion, and as stated in the PROD rationale I was not able to locate any suitable coverage when I looked.

The Figma link is a blog for the company Figma, and it's clearly not independent, as it opens with "Figma designer Rasmus Andersson learned that first hand while creating Inter" (bold added). The second link is a lovely post on some guy's blog, which is very nice, but does not constitute reliable coverage. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Fonts don't get mainstream attention, but this one seems to be known within the online font world: Typewolf, Dafontonline, a designer's blog. It gets a mention as one of the 36 fonts "to watch" for 2022 [20]. It's used in a web design book (although I can't tell to what detail), it's known as a "Google font" (whatever that is). However the Google site claims to cover 1,359 free fonts of which this is one. The Figma link is a company blog but the post describes how the font is used by github and mozilla, so it doesn't seem product-specific. Still, I understand that blog posts are often not considered RS. Lamona (talk) 01:03, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not a single one of these "sources" constitutes significant reliable coverage that supports a claim of notability. Typewolf is a non-professional one-man blog that solicits submissions from its audience including of their own work, DaFontOnline is not coverage but a place to download the font, and the Brian Gardner blog is the "lovely post on some guy's blog" I already mentioned in my nomination. Creative Boom looks reasonably reliable, but a scant paragraph in a listicle isn't exactly significant coverage. The web design book isn't talking about the font itself, just using it as an example of a free variable font; you could sub in any equivalent font and the content would not change. Being a "Google font" means literally nothing in terms of notability if there's no independent coverage of the fact that the font is one of almost 1400 free "Google fonts". Finally, the Figma post, as I already clearly pointed out, is not just a blog (unreliable unless proven otherwise), but much more importantly it is not independent of the subject, as the creator of this font is a designer with Figma. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • On what basis? So far, there is no sourcing to indicate that this typeface is any different from any of the literal millions of typefaces available for download on the internet. We are not a comprehensive guide to all of them. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that this typeface lacks notability for a page by itself. Then I started thinking in terms of populating the list of typefaces page so that it has more than just the name of the typefaces on it and thinking that perhaps this typeface may be an entry point into that project. Gusfriend (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding non-notable typefaces to that list would be a total failure of WP:LISTCRIT and an invitation for anyone to spam it with the name of every conceivable downloadable typeface. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:32, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. One of thousands of non-notable typefaces. – Pbrks (t • c) 22:28, 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. Unlike the "delete" opinions, the "keep" opinions do not discuss the quality of the sources cited in the article and do not refute the "delete" side's arguments. Sandstein 12:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Litvak[edit]

Igor Litvak (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)

His cases are a few of them notable -- he is not/ The articles on him are promotional interviews. DGG ( talk ) 06:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Law. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:45, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most of the sources cited do not provide Litvak significant coverage: they only mention him in passing while discussing a newsworthy case. The rest of the sources are mostly interviews or other non-independent sources; all that's left is "Vents Magazine", which in my view (and and the view of others) is not a reliable source. My Internet search found only more of the same. Fails the GNG/WP:BASIC. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:28, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I respect your judgement. I added 2 more sources and through the research tabs on the article in the banner I found many other sources but included the ones where he is discussed in detail. I believe he passes WP:GNG as per my understanding. Your views are much appreciated.JillViktor37 (talk) 15:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:39, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*keep Hi I came here randomly and after reading and checking the sources I believe it better from many articles but I know we can't compare, so reliable sources definition fits here as per my analysis. MontDuo12 (talk) 17:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nothing at a level that would actually show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:51, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/comment well sourced and all are reliable sources. Marc TW (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are non-independent sources (directories, etc., and an interview), and the remaining sources are about the famed hackers he defended (unsuccessfully), and that mention him. I don't see any significant independent sources about him. Lamona (talk) 01:52, 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 01:47, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neeyamo[edit]

Neeyamo (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)

Athe topic is not notable, as most of the links are press-releases. Awards section is too promotional and not helping the page FossLimi (talk) 08:04, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edits in references and removal of awards section have been made as per General notability guideline for organization as highlighted in the deletion discussion.Irenejones2009 (talk) 14:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For analysis of the newly added references.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:38, 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. ✗plicit 12:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Santadas Kathiababa[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Santadas Kathiababa (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)

Simply not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show they pass WP:GNG. Was draftified for improvement, but moved back into mainspace without improvement. Onel5969 TT me 11:38, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Philosophy, Hinduism, Bangladesh, and India. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The first source is a translation of his collected advice, so not independent. The second isn't about him, but about his teacher. Source Ei Samay is blocked. Whatever it says/said, a single source is not enough to establish notability. The remaining three sources are primary source images (which don't support the content where cited, by the way). Searches of the usual types, in English and Bengali, found no independent, reliable, secondary sources containing significant coverage of him. Fails WP:BIO. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mccapra, Scope creep, and Vinegarymass911: Pinging as interested editors not already notified. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree that the sources provided do not demonstrate notability so based on them we should not keep this. There may be better sources in Bengali but I have not been able to find anything that looks useful. Mccapra (talk) 07:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Poorly written and poorly sourced. Sources barely confirm his existence let alone establish notability.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 09:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems to be only one reference there and its a gallery. There is a shop ref. I couldn't find much in English sources on a WP:BEFORE but depending on how popular he is, there may be sources in other languages, although I would have assumed they would have already been added. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 09:36, 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 redirect to Sopfünuo#Film. Content can be merged from history. Sandstein 12:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Were I the Moon? The Legend of Sopfünuo[edit]

Were I the Moon? The Legend of Sopfünuo (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)

Cannot find enough in-depth coverage to show that this meets WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Onel5969 TT me 11:29, 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. ✗plicit 12:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sollers Osaka[edit]

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

Unsourced rather promotional article that never released full albums or singles. Long coat rack. The Banner talk 11:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Japan. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as A7. Loafiewa (talk) 18:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Their name is simply Sollers and they are from Osaka. Anyway, it is possible that they have Japanese media coverage for which it is impossible to search without a Japanese rendering of their name. In English they are only visible in mirrors of this WP article and occasional lists of musicians from their city. They don't even seem to have any music in the usual streaming and social media sites, at least under this name. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because they are not so notable.Fulmard (talk) 06:01, 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 delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Almo Coppelli[edit]

Almo Coppelli (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 significant coverage to pass as generally notable. Doctor Rhubarb (talk) 09:34, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Italy. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Judging by his DriverDB profile he appears to meet NMOTORSPORT quite comfortably. But more SIGCOV (such as this) needs to be found and the article improved. MSport1005 (talk) 12:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is in an awful shape, but he meets WP:NMOTORSPORT criteria 2 (just shy of two races for competing in full seasons in 1984 World Sportscar Championship and 1988 World Sportscar Championship), criteria 3 (several podiums in multiple seasons of World Sportscar Championship in C2 class, a podium in 1998 24 Hours of Le Mans LMP1 class), and criteria 4 by winning rounds of 1996 SCCA Pro Racing World Challenge. However, WP:GNG seems impossible to meet without having some insight into old newspaper sources; my searches have given me nothing aside from passing mentions in books, listings, or sporadic small coverage (like the one above by BBC which I do not consider as WP:SIGCOV). Because WP:GNG overrules WP:NSPORT (WP:NMOTORSPORT being the part of it), and the sourcing state for this WP:BLP is so dire, this is the way it goes. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:59, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails GNG. Document archives on Google all appear to be WP:ROUTINE in their coverage. Perhaps there is something more significant in Italian, but the Italian Wikipedia doesn't even have an article on this person. As this is a BLP, I must !vote for deletion even though NMOTORSPORT is met. Wikipedia is not a database. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 16:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Regrettably the article should be deleted. Although the subject does meet NMOTORSPORT, SNGs are not a substitute for the GNG, and it is plain to see that the subject does not have the necessary coverage to have an article. 5225C (talk • contributions) 01:33, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm not fully convinced he meets NMOTORSPORT. Certainly his "podium" at Le Mans counts for nothing as it was in class not overall. His championship win for 1984 as described on driverDB is quite suspect (given that it is not a reliable source) as our article, nor the Guiness Guide to International Motor Racing mention a drivers' championship for C2 in 1984. Whether a manufacturer only championship can count towards either criteria 2 or criteria 4 I don't know, but I don't think that the C2 class would count under criteria 2 as it wasn't nearly as professional as the top class. But then ultimately there is no evidence of meeting GNG. I don't think the BBC article above comes even close. A7V2 (talk) 10:55, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SpyWarrior[edit]

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

No indication of notability for this antivirus program - currently sourced only to its own website, and I couldn't find any RS coverage through WP:BEFORE. Spicy (talk) 09:05, 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! 06:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NWA Lonestar Women's Championship[edit]

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

No notable pro wrestling title. No coverage on reliable sources, just wp:routine results from a database, which doesn't stablished notability. HHH Pedrigree (talk)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 05:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of political families in Marinduque[edit]

List of political families in Marinduque (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)

Seems to be WP:OR as there are several additions of new political families over the previous eight years but no references to verify that they are indeed political families. Compare this article to List of political families in the Philippines which is sourced with references that verifies listed families as political dynasties. Fails WP:NPOL as well as several politicians listed here are local officials. --Lenticel (talk) 07:53, 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 keep. Liz Read! Talk! 22:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chorki (streaming service)[edit]

Chorki (streaming service) (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 topic does not meet WP:GNG requirements. Note The Daily Star and Prothom Alo are sister concerns and references to those sites should be taken as evidence of notability. Most of the references are the press releases and not the in-depth coverage needed for the subject. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 07:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - this one easily passes WP:GNG. Even if I avoid Daily Star and Prothom Alo, there are enough indepth coverage on Channel i, Daily Ittefaq and many more. Contents of this OTT are regularly featured by media outlets. These are not press releases. Press releases tend to have the same text, word for word, from different media outlets which is not the case here. --Zayeem (talk) 07:59, 19 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! 05:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 05:50, 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 keep. Liz Read! Talk! 03:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Raj Reddy[edit]

Raj Reddy (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 academic whose article seems to have been editorialized pretty extensively over a number of years by an SPA who seems to care an awful lot about the unsourced names of a random academic's grandchildren.

Other than that, sources pretty clearly fail academic notability guidelines. BrigadierG (talk) 04:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BrigadierG,CAPTAIN RAJU Prof. Raj Reddy is the recipient of Turing award in 1994, [1] and a prominent academician published several papers[2] and a University Professor of Computer Science and Robotics and Moza Bint Nasser Chair in the School of Computer Science at Carnegie Mellon University. I suggest to review your decision. I will help in wikification of article. Dollyrajupslp (talk) 07:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Raj Reddy - A.M. Turing Award Laureate". amturing.acm.org. Retrieved 2022-03-02.
  2. ^ "rrlong". www.rr.cs.cmu.edu. Retrieved 2022-03-02.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Thompson (businessman)[edit]

Richard Thompson (businessman) (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)

Coverage of the subject in cited sources is not substantial enough to indicate notability. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 03:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No google hits, editorialized article, irrelevant person BrigadierG (talk)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United Kingdom. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:12, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find any SIGCOV. Ginbopewz (talk) 11:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three randomly selected spot checks suggest that this article could probably be sourced sentence by sentence to news reports, various histories of sports teams, and the like. But I have not found an attempt to construct a biography of this person, or join the dots. What is known about this person, from what I can find at any rate, is basically a disconnected set of factoids about business ownerships. And the factoids wouldn't join up anyway. Two separate books by sports people have this person, in anecdotes, as a fan of two different sports teams at the same time, for starters. Uncle G (talk) 12:46, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete almsot a run of the mill businessman. Oaktree b (talk) 18:24, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Thomson (pharmacist)[edit]

Bill Thomson (pharmacist) (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 third party coverage. I don't think his awards give him automatic notability. LibStar (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:57, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The award is non-notable, he's mentioned in a peer-reviewed journal, but it's basically a "press-release" type of story saying he's won, in a journal for pharmacists. GScholar turns up no other hits on a pharmacist with his name, I get a curling coach and a bunch of other stuff. Oaktree b (talk) 18:27, 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.

Speedy keep/self close: Realized the author's subject does have extensive coverage under the nickname Matt Daniels (mainly for his work opposing LGBTQ rights, which is assiduously avoided in the article text and thus was not part of my keyword searches for WP:Before. Very much meets WP:GNG.(non-admin closure) WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 02:34, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Daniels[edit]

Matthew Daniels (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:NACADEMIC, based on criterion 5, The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research. Daniels does hold a named chair at the Institute of World Politics, but my sense is that IWP does not qualify as a major institution under the criteria. It is a very small (<200 students), relatively young (founded 1990), and highly specific organization that focuses only on graduate international affairs. If other editors agree that it does not qualify as major, then deletion is warranted: though the body appears extensive, albeit highly promotional, scrutiny of the sourcing shows that it is all self-published, non-independent, or tangential. While complicated somewhat by the generic name, WP:BEFORE did not unearth significant coverage to warrant the article existence. (Note that "Games for Good" is not the same organization as that covered briefly in some sources like IGN in the early 2000s). WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 02:28, 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) 23:29, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ani Azadian[edit]

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

Subject is a lawyer. All the sources are either not reliable or not independent. (CNN source is an interview piece for such it is considered not independent.) Subject fails GNG and ANYBIO. Cassiopeia talk 02:15, 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) 23:29, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GEco Holdings[edit]

GEco Holdings (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, cannot find much any any sourcing. Moreover, article unsourced, full off WP:PUFFERY, and reads like an advert. – Pbrks (t • c) 02:12, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

G9 (album)[edit]

G9 (album) (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:NALBUM. I performed WP:BEFORE and found out that this album did not attain at least gold status like other Gloc 9 albums such as Lihim at Liham and MKNM. I also did not find any awards or charted hits. --Lenticel (talk) 01:46, 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. ✗plicit 01:49, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peter McCormack (Journalist)[edit]

Peter McCormack (Journalist) (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)

Lack of notability. What little interest there is in this man seems to be localpress coverage related to his purchasing a mediocre football team. TheLongTone (talk) 14:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now retitled ....(journalist0. Article creator has removed AfD flag; I have just replaced.TheLongTone (talk) 15:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Pretty humorous attempt at notability, but I don't think much needs to be said here — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrigadierG (talk • contribs) 04:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most of the sources are his own podcast, He's mentioned more than once in the Bloomberg piece, but I'd much more to consider him notable as per the general notability guideline. CT55555 (talk) 21:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of reliable sources. Marginal WP:SPAM. Bearian (talk) 21:15, 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. Sandstein 07:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Appleseed Center for Fair Courts[edit]

Chicago Appleseed Center for Fair Courts (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 our notability guidelines for organizations. The sources cited in the article do not provide significant coverage: they're only brief passing mentions. A WP:BEFORE search did not find any in-depth coverage of the organization in independent reliable sources. (NPP action) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:19, 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! 22:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prometeu-Prim Lyceum[edit]

Prometeu-Prim Lyceum (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)

While language is no doubt an issue, I cannot find a claim to or evidence of notability for this school. Without that, there's no need for an English language article as we do not seek / nor should we be a directory of all schools that exist. Star Mississippi 22:49, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Prometeu-Prim could be seen (by UK readers) as a Moldovan equivalent to Eton College. In the last decade it was among the top-ranked high-schools as measured by pupil success rate at the Baccalaureat exam. Other than it being located in a non-English speaking country, I do not see a reason for deleting it. Would adding a few links to media resources change your opinion, Star Mississippi? Dsmntl (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete from what I can tell the only coverage about this school is extremely trivial and not usable for determining notability, for instance there's 4 references stating how many of the students passed the Baccalaureate examines, which just comes off like ref bombing and doesn't help for notability. I couldn't find any in-depth coverage when I looked either. So I'm not seeing how this passes WP:GNG. In the meantime I doubt it's a language issue, more just that this isn't notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " I cannot find a claim to or evidence of notability for this school" is the reason for deletion. The language issue may hinder finding that evidence, but what you've added doesn't convey notability, or backup for an Eton comparison unfortunately. It needs to be signifcant, in depth coverage about the school. A dispute between founders doesn't really add anything about the school. Star Mississippi 02:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:18, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The idea that Prometeu-Prim could be seen as a Moldovan equivalent to Eton College seems to be excessive hype. One of the things Eton has that makes it distinctive is a very long history. Eton was founded in 1450; Prometeu-Prim was founded in 1993. Prometeu-Prim may be a good high school but it has a short history and very few notable alumni (anyone over age 46 or so would be too old to have attended it since it wouldn't have existed when they were in high school). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:27, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The analogy with Eton was not made due to history, but due to the quality of education as proven by the success rate in passing the Baccalaureate exam. In itself, being among the top-ranked schools is arguably notable enough to be worth a mention in the Wikipedia. Regarding "ref bombing", the added references were meant to prove of the media interest for this institution. Dsmntl (talk) 21:23, 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. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Devon Archer[edit]

Devon Archer (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 was created today in an apparent attempt to smear Archer and Hunter Biden, and the article creator included a new reference to Archer in the lead of Biden's BLP to insinuate guilt by association. Hunter Biden had nothing to do with Archer's fraud, and the article fails to note Archer's conviction was overturned,[21] leaving readers to believe he went to prison. Just another smear job. soibangla (talk) 00:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Soibangla, the source you cite is from 2018. Yesterday on February 28, 2022, Archer was sentenced to a year and a day in prison. [22] Please stay up-to-date on current events. –trn (debate me) • (my accomplishments) 00:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected. The rest stands. soibangla (talk) 00:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per not meeting the standards of WP:GNG, WP:BLP1E, or WP:CRIMINAL. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please clarify. Thanks. –trn (debate me) • (my accomplishments) 00:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • He's not notable per GNG for lacking significant, in depth coverage of him as a person. He does not meet criteria of BLP1E as he is only known in the context of criminal accusations (and this conviction), he otherwise remains low-profile, and the event is not particularly significant. He doesn't meet the notability guideline CRIMINAL as the victim of his crime is not a renowned figure and the nature of the crime is pretty common – Muboshgu (talk) 00:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Archer has been heavily reported on by news outlets due to his association with Hunter Biden. Thus, he is notable enough for the page about him to remain as opposed to being deleted. –trn (debate me) • (my accomplishments) 00:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • He has been mentioned by disreputable outlets in an effort to smear the Bidens. He is more notable for that than for anything he's done. soibangla (talk) 00:36, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Newsweek has been depreciated as a source since about 2013 or so, the DOJ is basically a press-release and the Washington Examiner is not a preferred source, so one NO and two weak maybes as sources. Oaktree b (talk) 16:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • In the context of disreputable outlets in an effort to smear the Bidens, reputable sources have mentioned Archer to dispute/refute what disreputable sources have claimed. You know...factchecking. soibangla (talk)
                • That does not dispute my point regarding the notability of Archer due to the mentions of him by news outlets. The fact that reliable sources would strenuously mention him in an effort to refute alleged misinformation only makes him notable. –trn (debate me) • (my accomplishments) 01:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Yeah, he got his 15 minutes in 2019 when the Hunter Biden fake scandal was emerging but it amounted to nothing and he has since been ignored, apart from disreputable sources who now report his sentencing by naming Biden in their ledes[28][29] to keep this endless fake scandal alive. soibangla (talk) 01:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Koncorde has it right. Archer has been mentioned in press reports, but that is not "signficant coverage". Where was he born? When was he born? Where did he go to school? What else can you tell us about him that goes beyond his criminal activity and his association with Hunter Biden? – Muboshgu (talk) 03:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per relevance and notability. "Devon Archer" was linked to from several other articles prior to my creation of the page. –trn (debate me) • (my accomplishments) 00:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but at the very least it should be re-written (which I have attempted) to get at what is actually significant - i.e. Archer would be just another criminal businessman if not for his circle of friends. His coverage in sources that want to farm that relationship will be pretty predictable, and far from exhaustive, as he is just another name in events that happened around him. Would agree with Soibangla about WP:BLP1E, or WP:CRIMINAL, but I also think WP:SIGCOV is of relevance. The articles don't address Archer particularly - they are about the criminal act - and then attempt to circle back to Hunter. Also per WP:NOTNEWS item 3 and to an extent item 4 which works both backwards and forwards - such association is gossip. Koncorde (talk) 02:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Koncorde. --Vaco98 (talk) 03:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of reliable sources listed. 71.179.1.78 (talk) 14:13, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He defrauded a Native American Indian reserve out of money, hardly wiki worthy. Oaktree b (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think that Koncorde and Muboshgu are correct in that WP:BLP1E applies, we don't really have the material to meet WP:CRIMINAL, and there isn't the WP:SIGCOV to write a true biography. Notability is not inherited from the organizations in which he was a partner or the other people who also had that status. XOR'easter (talk) 21:38, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per SINGLEEVENT, the event has already been written about and there is nothing left to say about the person. Other than the scandal he was convicted of, which appears to be unrelated, insignificant, and lacking in references.--Gronk Oz (talk) 07:39, 3 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_March_2&oldid=1076236882"