Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 April 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 05	April 07 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 07:59, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Equity Shift[edit]

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

Non-notable company, all sourcing used is PR and simple government listings. I can't find anything extra. Oaktree b (talk) 15:05, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and North Carolina. AllyD (talk) 15:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — does not pass WP:NCORP. PopoDameron ⁠talk 17:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I would like to help improve this page to follow WP:NCORP guidelines.

Can you help me with a few things?

1. Do cross-references (like FINRA's membership website) not qualify as secondary sources?

2. Do secondary sources like the Open Cap Table Coalition (listing Equity Shift as a member) not count?

Thank you for your help in improving this article. Wduckett (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, we need articles in the New York Times, as an example, of the level of coverage required. Mentioned in a business journal etc. Oaktree b (talk) 12:17, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:37, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Clear absence of encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 03:05, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I had left a note on the article creator's talk page regarding WP:COI and the WP:DISCLOSE requirements. Aside from that, nothing in the article text (membership of trade associations, grant of a patent, etc.) is indicative of attained notability here and searches do not find better. AllyD (talk) 06:24, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:59, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sharyn Maceren[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a musician not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The strongest notability claim here is that she once had a single chart on a Billboard genre specialty chart that is not listed at Wikipedia:Record charts as a notability-clinching chart in and of itself -- that is, it would be fine to include in a properly referenced article, but is in no way "inherently" notable enough to secure inclusion in Wikipedia even if the sourcing is otherwise inadequate -- but other than that, this is entirely of the "musician whose music exists" flavour, and features absolutely no evidence of reliable source coverage about her in real media independent of herself: the sourcing is almost entirely to her own self-published content about herself on her own website and/or Twitter or Q&A interviews in which she's talking about herself in the first person, and even the few references that come from anywhere else are still unreliable junk that does absolutely nothing to establish passage of WP:GNG.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have much, much better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 20:24, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 20:24, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:32, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP fails GNG and BIO. Source eval:

Primary :: 1. "Sharyn Maceren Bio". sharyn.net. Sharyn Maceren and Ocean Dream Records. Dance/Pop/EDM Artist ...This Singer/Songwriter
Discography :: 2. ^ Sharyn Maceren Discography: Always Dreamin, Accessed October 31, 2010.
Discography :: 3. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Sharyn Maceren Discography: Nighttime Land , Accessed October 31, 2010.
Discography :: 4. ^ Sharyn Maceren Discography: "Can U Wait" / "Delicious" , Accessed October 31, 2010.
Discography :: 5. ^ Sharyn Maceren Discography: "Can U Wait" (Remixes), Accessed October 31, 2010.
Discography :: 6. ^ Sharyn Maceren Discography: "Sweet Nothings", Accessed October 31, 2010.
Primary :: 7. ^ "Sharyn Maceren Bio". Sharyn Maceren Home Page. Retrieved December 16, 2012.
Twitter Timeline :: 8. ^ Maceren, Sharyn. "Sharyn Tweets About the Timing of Sunkissed". Sharyn Maceren's Twitter Timeline. Twitter. Retrieved December 16, 2012.
Discography :: 9. ^ "Sharyn Maceren Discography". Sharyn Maceren's Home Page. Retrieved December 16, 2012.
FAQ, 404, Fails V :: 10. ^ Sharyn Maceren Faq, Accessed October 31, 2010.
Interview :: 11. ^ Tanneur, Francis. "Sharyn Maceren Interview". freestylemusic.com. Retrieved May 20, 2011.
Not IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth :: 12. ^ "Asian Sirens on Sharyn Maceren". asian-sirens.com. Retrieved April 16, 2011.
Wiki page :: 13. ^ Jump up to:a b Last FM's Sharyn Maceren wiki page , Accessed April 16, 2011.
Not IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth :: 14. ^ Tanneur, Francis. "Music Reviews #13". freestylemusic.com. Retrieved April 16, 2011.
FAQ, Q & A style :: 15. ^ "Sharyn Maceren: FAQ". Archived from the original on February 11, 2009.
Failed V, 404 :: 16. ^ "Slammin Sam Maxion: About". Retrieved April 16, 2011.
Planet Hype, promo :: 17. ^ "Planet Hype's Sharyn Maceren Bio". www.planethype.com/. Planet Hype. Retrieved June 30, 2014.
Not IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth :: 18. ^ Billboard's January 24 maxi-single chart. January 24, 1998. Retrieved April 16, 2011.

BEFORE showed nothing that meets IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per V, BLP and BIO.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:36, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Literally zero hits on Gnews or Gnewspapers. Normal Gsearch is social media links. Nothing found for this "#1" singer/performer. I'm wondering if half the stuff in the article is made up at this point. Very PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 00:39, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No input since the last relist, no indication of any to come. 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. Star Mississippi 20:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I Didn't Mean to Haunt You[edit]

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

Only sources on pages I'd consider entirely useful here are Spill and Fantano (and of course that's a well-established controversy 'round these parts). Past that, I found some nice words on the lead single, an album announcement (talks about a couple songs but mostly about the artist generally), and this mostly primary-source discussion of influences which happens to open on a couple paragraphs about the album. All told, I don't think this collection is quite enough for a notability pass. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 22:43, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 22:43, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quadeca. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 22:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and NALBUMS "All articles on albums or other recordings should meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Sources and BEFORE showed all primary and promo, database, nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 00:16, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:32, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Boy in the Box (disambiguation). Clear consensus against a standalone article; the argument for redirecting to the DAB page is persuasive, and nobody has argued against a link to the other proposed target there. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:20, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Boy in a Box[edit]

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

Unreferenced article. Not clear that the subject passes WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM due to lack of sources. 4meter4 (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article isn't actually unreferenced; there are three sources in the ratings template that are formatted as outgoing links without ref tags. However, two of those are blatantly blogs (the one marked as a permanent dead link actually isn't; here's the archive) and the Austin American-Statesman page appears to be both a permanent dead link and the only potentially reliable coverage I can find for this album. Johnny Goudie doesn't look like much from a brief skim, but without a standing PROD/AfD on it, I don't see why we shouldn't redirect there. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:32, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom and QuietHere. Walt Yoder (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per previous two, or keep if more reviews are found through WP:Library or otherwise. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 11:21, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In my opinion a direct redirect would not be ideal per WP:PRIMARYTARGET. A redirect at Boy in a Box should really go to The Boy in the Box (disambiguation) where there are several possible search targets with similar language. Honestly the most likely target article for this language would be the Murder of Joseph Augustus Zarelli who was widely known as ""Boy in the Box" / "Boy in a Box" in the national and international press for decades until his body was identified in 2022 through DNA more than 65 years after his murder in 1957. (indeed I came across this article while trying to reach that one) We could then mention the album and link to the artist on that disambiguation page.4meter4 (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the difference between "boy in a box" and "boy in the box" is sufficient, but I don't feel strongly against the redirect being to The Boy in the Box (disambiguation). Walt Yoder (talk) 19:10, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I will point out that we have had a long standing hat note to The Boy in the Box (disambiguation) at this page (it was added in July 2008 to the article); so the need to disambiguate this title seems to be standing consensus at this article's history.4meter4 (talk) 19:16, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an example of a source demonstrating the disambiguation need, considering the term "Boy in a Box"'s in connection with the Murder of Joseph Augustus Zarelli: Michale Rubinkam, The Associated Press (December 8, 2022). "66 years later, Philadelphia's 'Boy in a Box' has a name". York Dispatch. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:15, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect As per QuietHere. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and move to Walnut Islands. There appears to be a strong NGEO argument for the proposed title that has not been rebutted. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:23, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ramona, Los Angeles County, California[edit]

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

Declined PROD, the reason provided by 71.231.145.125 was: This is not a commonly known place. Just one person's fabrication. I double checked and it does seem like a fabrication, or at least a very local name in the same way my hometown has a neighborhood called L'Étang-des-Caps. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:26, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:26, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a fabrication. I didn't make it up. The community is acknowledged by multiple organizations, though by fifferent names. Look at these links.

https://maps.latimes.com/neighborhoods/neighborhood/ramona/index.html

https://planning.lacounty.gov/site/esgvap/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/ESGV_WalnutIslands_ComProfile_20190430.pdf Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 23:33, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know the names aren't the same but they both acknowledge the same piece of unincorporated land and have made statistics on the population of this land. I based this article on Mapping LA's report of this unincorporated community. Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 23:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As for the part about these simply being local names, the names locals actually use for the area are simply the names of the surrounding cities. Nobody calls it Walnut Islands or Ramona, everyone calls it Covina or West Covina or Pomona in real life. The most technical term for the area would be Walnut Islands, even though no one uses it, since it's being used by a public organization. The next most technical term would be Ramona, at least if you allow LA Times to influence the naming of the article. But maybe I should have called the article Walnut Islands. After all, they've already renamed it to Walnut Islands on Google Maps. It's a real community, recognized by Google Maps, through and through. Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 23:40, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As you say, no one calls it Walnut Islands or Ramona, which is why the names are not relevant. What is the history? Who coined the name other than you? 71.231.145.125 (talk) 23:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The names aren't irrelevant just because no one calls them that. What about Vincent, California, or Citrus, California? No one calls them that, but these are the names used for the articles since those were the names used in the 2020 census. Also, I've said multiple times, I chose the term 'Ramona' for the article because of the Mapping LA article pertaining to the community.

https://maps.latimes.com/neighborhoods/neighborhood/ramona/index.html

I don't know who exactly coined this term, but it was almost certainly coined before I was born, since the article in the URL in question only shows the 2000 census, and I was born after 2000.

It doesn't matter if no local regular civilian uses the term 'Ramona' or 'Walnut Islands', these terms are used by relevant organizations, and the same goes for the communities of Vincent and Citrus. Do you suggest we delete those articles too? Walnut Islands is the most official name we have fot the community. Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 00:26, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it hasn't been made clear, let me more thoroughly explain who else uses the term. Around 2008, the Los Angeles Times made a section of their site called Mapping LA, which shows all the communities in Los Angeles County. In San Gabriel Valley, they assigned the name 'Ramona' to the unincorporated areas in between Covina, Walnut, West Covina, and Pomona. Apparently they even somehow used the 2000 Census to calculate how many people lived in the area, which means the Census Bureau must've counted how many people were in this area back in the 2000s. And all this was done before I even knew what a city even was.

Still think I made this up? Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 00:34, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is misleading, the Census did not tabulate what the total population of "Ramona" was and you will not find this identified in Census data, rather the area is composed of census tracts and census blocks just like anywhere else and it's trivial to add these numbers up. TigerWeb shows the map of these. Reywas92^Talk 16:32, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:09, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, this isn't a community. It's not like so many of the articles we've discussed where something may in fact be a small neighborhood of nearby residents at a location known by a certain name (just not covered in sources), rather it is merely defined by the fact that it is not incorporated into the neighboring cities. This article discusses another area nearby called the Covina Islands that like this is very simply territory that hasn't been incorporated. While the standards for a census-designated place call for those to be cohesive places with a known name ("one that is recognized and used in daily communication by the residents of the community" not "a name developed solely for planning or other purposes"), this is not the case here – apparently no one who lives there would say that's where they're from and the media doesn't use these names either! It just so happens that one side of the area is neighborhoods – some of them noncontiguous – that haven't been annexed by Walnut, Covina, or West Covina and the other side of the hills is the Cal Poly Pomona campus that has not been incorporated by Pomona. Of course the regional planning authority needs to discuss every part of the region including unincorporated areas and give them a name like islands (there's also Glendora Islands next to Glendora and several other areas that are neither incorporated nor cohesive enough to be named a CDP). I'd be interested in seeing something older showing where "Ramona" came from (there's nothing on USGS topos), since it seems like it was made up out of thin air before another agency made up Walnut Islands. But when this is nothing more than a planning or statistical area, I'm quite hesitant to see notability or have an article on it and lean delete. If kept, it should really be more explit that this is a planning area simply defined by the lack of local government, not overstating what it really is. Reywas92^Talk 16:32, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, there's A LOT of unincorporated areas in Los Angeles County with articles having the same trait of having a name not used by the public, and the existence of these areas not being acknowledged by the public. Vincent, California and Citrus, California for example, are never called Vincent or Citrus in real life, everyone I know just calls them Azusa or Covina, yet somehow those articles met the threshold for notability. You could say those names were provisionally pulled out of thin air for statistical purposes since no one calls those unincorporated areas Vincent or Citrus. If we turned back now and suddenly raised the bar on notability, there's a lot of articles we'd need to delete. A lot of unincorporated areas go unacknowledged and aren't called by their official names. Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 02:14, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Vincent and Citrus have been recognized and tabulated as census-designated places since at least the 2000 census, so that's a fairly substantial difference. But yes, there are a number of CDPs that don't necessarily meet the standards of what they are intended to be (like some large subdivisions in New Jersey, for example), so they don't really have that much notability either. Reywas92^Talk 21:15, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but those names were "developed solely for planning and other purposes", by the US Census, not "one that is recognized and used in daily communication". Trust me, no one in that area will call those areas Vincent or Citrus, and very few people even know they're called that by the government in the first place, only government officials know them by that name. I used to live there myself, everyone calls it Covina or Azusa, and they don't know that it's called Vincent or Citrus by the government. Even on the news they prefer to call it (unincorporated) Covina or Azusa. Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the closest thing we have to the areas being called by those names is people in the area saying "I'm on Citrus" or "I'm on Vincent". But obviously they're referring to Citrus or Vincent Avenue, not these unincorporated areas. Nobody really says, "I'm IN Citrus". Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 23:46, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, how did the Mapping LA website get the US Census statistics for Ramona in 2000, as it says on the website? Don't you think it could have been recognized as an unincorporated community by the US Census at one point? Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 23:47, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I replied above, the census tabulates and reports populations of census blocks, and it's trivial for anyone to add those up for any given area. The Census has never reported anything for "Ramona", just the blocks and tracts there. Reywas92^Talk 03:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. But it still seems that Los Angeles County still officially recognizes Walnut Islands as an unincorporated area, considering their Department of Regional Planning considered it notable enough to include in their area plan. And people do call the area Covina Hills, so the area has a limited sort of notability. Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 17:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But I guess you're right about it not being a census-designated place since it didn't get it's own page on the US Census website. It's only recognized at the county level, and by no one above, nor no one below. Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 17:12, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But even then, there's some other articles that have the same notability problems as Ramona, like the article for West San Dimas, as it's not on the US Census Bureau website either, even though some websites like BlockShopper call it a CDP, when that can't be verified, because some sites even call Walnut Islands a CDP. Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 17:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

West San Dimas, California was also created by you and should also be considered for deletion.

Also, Cal Poly Pomona is a major university that occupies a significant portion of what you're calling Ramona or Walnut Islands but they've never mentioned their location by those names. 71.231.145.125 (talk) 06:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They've never called it by those names because unincorporated communities generally don't get acknowledged as much as incorporated cities. Nobody calls the area Walnut Islands, but it's still a real unincorporated area recognized by the county government, like Vincent or Citrus, even though these areas are pretty much universally referred to as Covina or Azusa, and neither Vincent or Citrus are acknowledged by locals at all. I agree with saying Cal Poly Pomona's in Pomona in the Cal Poly Pomona article to avoid confusion, since no one actually calls the area by the name the county government uses. But I don't see the need to delete Walnut Islands when Vincent and Citrus are unincorporated communities with similar notability issues yet their articles have been up for years. Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 17:55, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about Cal Poly Pomona's official naming convention. I'm talking about them ever uttering Walnut Islands or Ramona on their website or any other publication. EVER. 71.231.145.125 (talk) 20:23, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know. But I'm not talking about Cal Poly Pomona anymore, I'm talking about the justification of an article for Walnut Islands based on it being officially recognized by the county, independent of any acknowledgement by Cal Poly Pomona (in this case the lack thereof). Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 00:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, look at Citrus. Dalton Park, the one county park in Citrus, doesn't even acknowledge Citrus, instead opting for "unincorporated Azusa".

https://parks.lacounty.gov/dalton-park/

As far as I know nobody beyond statistical or government websites really acknowledge Citrus. Should we delete the article for Citrus as well?

As I said before the acknowledgement by organizations or people besides the government is irrelevant and the fact we have multiple articles for unincorporated areas not acknowledged by anyone but the government proves this. Unincorporated areas, by their very nature, are gonna be mainly acknowledged more by the government than anyone else, and unlike cities there's a chance they won't really be acknowledged by anyone at all, since people prefer to refer to these areas by the names of the surrounding cities. Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 01:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Walnut Islands: Passes GNG, NGEO, Its legally recognized recognized populated place name.[1]. Its referred to in local government docs as "Walnut Islands", [2], [3]. Community orgs call it "Walnut Islands" [4]. Three refs is all I'm gonna list, but I'm sure a newspaper search would find refs to the name. I've only heard "Ramona" used for the area around Mt Sac and Cal Poly, but that matters not. // Timothy :: talk 00:17, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds excellent. It was my mistake to call the article Ramona but it's still a real unincorporated area nonetheless. Let's do it! Sausage Link of High Rule (talk) 00:24, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move As per Timothy. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:01, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:35, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NTR30[edit]

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

Other editors tried to keep this in draft space as there's no evidence (no sources in the article) that the film has even started filming. Fails WP:NFILM. Bbb23 (talk) 23:26, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:09, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. There is a draft that has sources, but this version is utterly devoid of them. The version in draft space would not be accepted. If that draft is improved, I have no issues promoting it to mainspace, but this should be worked on in draftspace at this time. —C.Fred (talk) 00:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not ready for mainspace due to lack of coverage at this point, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 02:59, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Film announced only [5], not filming started. ~

‪AShiv1212‬ (talk) 02:34, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SNOW. No reasonable editor would want to keep this. Bearian (talk) 18:44, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 23:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Refining Fires[edit]

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

Does not appear notable, tagged in March 2023. Nothing found in a BEFORE.

PROD removed with "deprod; probably notable" DonaldD23 talk to me 22:53, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:53, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even a quick internet search shows there is enough material to attest notability and develop an article. Motography, January 23, 1915, p. 148-9, quoted on the site of the UOC. Plot summary and review in The Moving Picture World, January 30, 1915 (quoted on the IMDb p. for the film, btw but available through the MPW Archives). Article in the South Bend News-Times 15 February 1915. At least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mushy Yank (talk • contribs)
Keep as per the reliable sources coverage identified above that shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 02:57, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added three references and reworked the article. Bruxton (talk) 14:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Anne Jolliffe. ✗plicit 23:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bunyip (Australian TV series)[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable, nothing found in a BEFORE. Tagged for notability since 2017.

PROD removed with no improvements. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:47, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and Australia. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:47, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unless NLA's Trove comes to the rescue, redirect to creator Anne Jolliffe. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 23:54, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Anne Jolliffe. Can't see any decent coverage. Doctorhawkes (talk) 00:01, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Anne Jolliffe, until more sources are found. Regards, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 03:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 10:06, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welspun India[edit]

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

Promotional article, and this subsidiary lacks coverage meeting the WP:CORPDEPTH thresholds. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:44, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found a lot of references but nothing that meets WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:28, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick Google search brings up multiple media sources providing WP:CORPDEPTH level of coverage [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. I'm pretty sure there are plenty of analyst reports too as this is a large enough WP:LISTED company. Easily passes WP:NCORP. Promotional writing can be cleaned up through normal editing. Maduant (talk) 06:37, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, largest spinning factory. Maduant is correct Lightburst (talk) 23:49, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Lightburst, that link doesn't seem to work. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:27, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found by Maduant. Although the article does need to be rewritten in order to appear more encyclopedic and less promotional. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coach Henry E.V.K[edit]

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

This page represents a comprehensive failure of WP:NMUSICIAN and comes across a lot like WP:ARTSPAM. Besides the two hagiographies cited as the article's only sources, online references appear to be limited to Facebook and Wordpress. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 21:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Christianity, and Nigeria. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 21:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. A Google search of the subject doesn't show any coverage in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:38, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with this deletion assessment. There are not enough citations for this person to qualify.Kakara69 (talk) 07:36, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:59, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neon Swing X-perience[edit]

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

Does not meet relevant standards of notability; minor coverage in local media only. Moriwen (talk) 20:43, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Pennsylvania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:47, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The nominator is correct; the band is purely local and has only received some minor media mentions for gig announcements and the like. They have nothing that satisfies WP:SIGCOV or the more specific requirements at WP:NBAND. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:04, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable purely local band. No sourcing found, long way from GNG.Oaktree b (talk) 00:42, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with this deletion assessment. There are not enough citations for this person to qualify.Kakara69 (talk) 07:37, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Big Dumb Face. ✗plicit 23:39, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Borland[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, only known for his famous brother, no coverage in independent sources All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Virginia. Shellwood (talk) 20:24, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Big Dumb Face, the only act in which he has received any media mentions, and even then it is merely as a listed member. Not independently notable. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:00, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Big Dumb Face, where the subject is listed as a band member. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:17, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If there is interest in developing this content toward a limited merger, I would be willing to provide a userspace copy. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Myth Makers: Trixie in Toyland[edit]

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

Non-notable shovelware, for a console with tons of it. Also nominating:

Myth Makers: Orbs of Doom
Myth Makers: Super Kart GP

QuicoleJR (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously a game just being low quality is not enough for it to be removed (see also Vroom in the Night Sky), but I couldn't find sufficient significant coverage for any of the games; for the most part they only got an IGN review. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Save A game that has enough info to be on this site DaRealToonChance (talk) 00:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Enough info? Truth ≠ Notability. The game is not notable. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:10, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Save Being considered one of the worst Wii games period makes it notable. I just came across this page because I'm researching female protagonist games and have seen way more games of less notability that have pages, but I find any info on these games valuable. I would vote to keep it. Mroddman (talk) 23:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:ITSUSEFUL are not valid arguments. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What about it being considered one of the worst wii games and one of a handful of wii female protagonist games? That does not make it notable? Mroddman (talk) 23:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. Read WP:GNG. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I find multiple sources saying it's one of the worst Wii games. I listed one in my other reply to you. Mroddman (talk) 23:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've checked Data Design Interactive's(the game's developer) website hoping some reviews would be listed but no luck. I found 2 PDF files mentioning Trixie in Toyland + the other two games but that's it [14], [15] Timur9008 (talk) 04:07, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was surprised that there was nothing besides the IGN link since I'd heard of it before. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:51, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - One of four pieces of copy and paste shovelware, non-notable in terms of reviews, reception and development. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 10:40, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Save It is considered one of the worst Wii games and that seems like notoriety. Mroddman (talk) 23:48, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1. Do not vote twice.

2. Notability is based off of sources, not being considered something. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.watchmojo.com/articles/top-10-worst-wii-games Watchmojo listed as the 4th worst Wii game. That's a source confirming its noteriety. Mroddman (talk) 23:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe WatchMojo is listed as an unreliable source. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would imagine the same thing for historical facts and similar, but this is essentially a published review from a large organization. And I can't find anything that says WatchMojo is not accepted as a reliable source, but if you can find one I'll concede there. The only thing I see is that Youtube channels are generally not accepted unless it's from a large organization which WatchMojo is, but also this is a written article. I do think the WatchMojo listicle regardless confirms it's notoriety, the game does have a reputation if even if the gaming press can't be easily found now. It's definitely recognized as such in the Youtube community and other online communities. Mroddman (talk) 00:05, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I remember correctly, lists are usually not considered SIGCOV. You can fact-check me on that one at WT:VG if you like. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:07, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is the closest thing I can find: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:NLISTITEM&redirect=no "Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned within the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight, balance, and other content policies." It appears to me it adheres to due weight and balance policies from what I understand, though admittedly I'm not an expert on wikipedia policy. Mroddman (talk) 00:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Ninjabread Man? Hell, if Trixie, Anubis II and Rock 'n' Roll Adventures are pretty much reskins of the same game without enough independent coverage, it would probably be necessary to just incorporate stuff from those articles and briefly mention it on Ninjabread Man's development section. Blake Gripling (talk) 12:41, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Aoidh (talk) 02:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rentec Direct[edit]

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

Fails WP:N, specifically WP:NCORP. Sources are press releases, either from company or non-notable awards. The recently added USA Today is a one sentence passing mention. Slywriter (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Software. Slywriter (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Oregon. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has received not just one, but five Stevie Awards, which Wikipedia does consider notable, as in general an award which is listed with it's own Wikipedia article is considered notable Wikipedia:Awards_and_accolades. The 5 awards, plus the SOREDI article. All awards are removed from the article which I believe is not fair, if Stevie Awards are useless then its ok.
- 2021 Company of the Year: https://stevieawards.com/aba/rentec-direct-company-year-0
- 2021 Entrepreneur of the Year: https://stevieawards.com/aba/rentec-direct-entrepreneur-year
- 2022 company awards, they just list them here: https://stevieawards.com/aba/company-organization-awards-1
- 2022 customer service: https://stevieawards.com/aba/customer-service-awards-2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bar to Bar (talk • contribs) 18:34, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pay to play award. No independent coverage of subject receiving it. Slywriter (talk) 18:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well I did my research and there's nothing written on Wikipedia policies that says that what you are saying, please send I want to learn from you. As per this Wikipedia:Awards and accolades I think Stevie awards are legit. I'm adding them under this Wikipedia policy. Thanks Bar to Bar (talk) 19:49, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, so here are my points after an additional research. I believe the original article was well purposed and cited, but there are some references which can make it better and more notable and warrant keeping the wikipedia article.

The main relevant question for a deletion request is: does it meet WP:ORG? I believe it does because it meets the stated criteria: A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.
There are two articles from print news media by The Daily Courier that I've recommended in the talk page. These articles meet all the requirements of WP:ORG in that they are a) significant coverage, b) independent coverage, c) a reliable source, and d) are a secondary source. The articles are behind a paywall and are physical print media; however, they should count because they are WP:PUBLISHED.
Additionally there are significant, independent, reliable and secondary articles about this organization from Multi-Housing News as well as SOREDI, Southern Oregon Business Journal, and themiddlemarket.com.
The Stevie Awards potentially add additional notability. Per Wikipedia:Awards and accolades, the Stevie Awards are notable and some precedent has been set as hundreds of organizations on Wikipedia have included them.
The 5 years of INC 5000 awards were removed, which is understandable as the INC 5000 awards do not have their own Awards page, although they are prominently mentioned here Inc._(magazine)#Inc._500_and_Inc._5000. While one INC5000 award may not be considered notable, it is extraordinarily rare for a company to achieve the list for 6 or more years. I believe this happens to less than 1% of 1% (.01%) of organizations which is extremely notablee; however, I think a citation for that would be useful which I've yet to find. There has also been some precedent set in that hundreds of organizations have INC5000 awards within their wikipedia page. While not fitting into a specific policy or rule, editors could subjectively agree that it is notable for a company to be included on the list so many years in a row and include it within the article and potentially include it within the notability criteria as well. Bar to Bar (talk) 19:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary).

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:N. Regarding the Stevie Awards it looks like a "pay to play" awards ceremony where a fee is paid to enter and "30-40% of entrants receive an award" thus fails WP:SIRS. Whilst the awards may be notable (not for debate here) - winners are not automatically notable. MetricMaster (talk) 08:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC) This user has made 47 edits to Wikipedia. Their contribution history shows that 38 of these were to AFD discussions. The account exists for votestacking and has been blocked.[reply]

Concern oh, so this last guy is blocked, I believe he/she didn't even have a look at references, and I don't understand that pay-to-play concern, why would someone do that every year, so this means all these awards are fake? I'm sure they are not. And not sure why other awards are removed from the page again, they are legit and have multiple sources. I will re-cite. Thanks Bar to Bar (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is disputing the existence of the awards, I'm sure they have been legitimately awarded, etc. But the awards are not "significant" in terms of helping to establish notability because (as I mention below) hundreds are given out every year plus the fact that companies essentially pay to enter for an award and have a 30%/40% chance of winning once they pay/enter. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. Analysis of sources as follows:
- I was unable to access the Grants Pass Daily Courier reference and it is not possible to tell much about the content of the article from the small snippet quoted but it does not appear to include a lot of in-depth detail nor have any "Independent Content". In my opinion, also fails WP:AUD.
- This in Soredi.org is a Press Release. Fails WP:ORGIND.
- This in USA Today is a mere mention-in-passing with no in-depth information on the company, fails CORPDEPTH
- This in Southern Oregon Business is a Press Release, fails ORGIND
- This in Finance Yahoo is a Press Release, fails ORGIND
- This in The Middle Market is entirely based on this Press Release, fails ORGIND
- This next in Southern Oregan Business is also a Press Release, fails ORGIND
- Finally, there are a number of "awards" including the Stevie Awards which according to the organization, awards are given in hundreds of categories, and 30-40% of entrants receive an award. Can't understand why anyone would think this award, which you basically pay for, assists with establishing notability. It is a non-notable award.

None of the sources and none of the awards meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:19, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent coverage of the Stevie Award, rest is press release and passing mentions. I'm not showing GNG or NCORP. Oaktree b (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Due to possible COI I won't kick in a vote, but will notate some info which might be helpful for other editors:

The Daily Courier article, does include in-depth independent reporting on Rentec Direct. The full article is 616 words and the entire article discusses Rentec Direct. It is independently written by Jason McMillen of the Daily Courier and also had an editorial review. The article appeared as the featured front page article on the Sunday, January 6, 2019 edition of the printed paper. The article also references Rentec Direct's Entrepreneur 360 Award, which was previously included in the Awards section of the article (removed by an editor due to lack of citation). Both paywalled and printed newspapers meet WP:Published. See also WP:PAYWALL "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access."

The Daily Courier should meet WP:AUD as it is a regional newspaper. Per Grants Pass Daily Courier "The Daily Courier is the oldest continuously published newspaper in Southern Oregon." The paper routinely covers stories and has circulation across multiple counties and multiple cities in Southern Oregon which should define it as a regional newspaper.

The SOREDI article is not a press release or based upon a press release. Their website appears to mistakenly include it in a press release category, maybe because they thought it was newsworthy. The article was independently written about this org by SOREDI. One can verify this by searching any snippet of the article to see that it does not turn up elsewhere: search or search.

I'll defer to a more experienced editor if these should be referenced. It's potentially notable that this org's studies/data have been referenced numerous times by high profile independent journalists. New York Times 1, New York Times 2, New York Times 3, Baltimore Business Journal, Multi Housing News

Thanks! Locu (talk) 19:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Response I'm unable to see the Grants Pass Daily Courier article so I cannot comment on that content - if somehow it was possible to read the article, we could arrive at a better informed conclusion. I take your point about Grants Pass Daily Courier, I based my earlier comment on the description of the newspaper as a small family-owned regional newspaper with a circulation of under 13,000 but it is also described as a paper of record for Josephine County (population 88K) so although a small newspaper, it might squeak into the definition of "regional". What do others think?

I disagree with your conclusion on the SOREDI article though. It is at the very least an article prepared with the cooperation of the company using information provided by the company and preempted the Prosper Awards. You can check here and you will see that the awardees (including the topic company) were profiled in advance of the awards announcement. It isn't "Independent Content" and fails ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:35, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It looks like we have consensus there is one reliable, independent source with some level of in-depth coverage. This is not enough to satisfy GNG. Relisting for further consensus on the rest of the sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:45, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Grants Pass Daily Courier reference isn't sufficient to meet WP:NCORP. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:12, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:40, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Olsen (actor)[edit]

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

Seems to be non-notable. Only source on the article is IMDb and I'm not finding any other reliable sources for the article. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:25, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, United States of America, and California. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:25, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Only finding passing mentions myself. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:45, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Chiche[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. The wide majority of the content here were added by a WP:SPA in 2015, as well as apparently even by Sophie Chiche themselves (Sophiechiche). John Yunshire (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Women, Journalism, and Psychology. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:34, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems entirely promotional and my searches did not indicate notability. I'll happily reconsider if someone can establish notability, so ping me if that's the case. CT55555(talk) 17:39, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Life strategist trying to promote herself on Wiki. Life beyond Nutella and Mayonnaise seems promising, but alas, it isn't. Surprised this stayed up for almost a decade... Oaktree b (talk) 19:37, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I find this, it's about a paragraph and not much for notability [16]. Rest is coverage of the sauna thing she sells/promotes. Oaktree b (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like WP:PROMO to me. There is a little bit of coverage, but would need WP:TNT or to stubify if kept. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:19, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete everybody loves a trier, but this one isn't notable. - Roxy the dog 07:28, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable and promo.Pershkoviski (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 10:06, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ava Cadell[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. The wide majority of the content here were added by a WP:SPA from 2007, with subsequent edits over the years made by various sockpuppets of User:Expertwikiguy. John Yunshire (talk) 17:24, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Sexuality and gender, Hungary, and United States of America. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 18:42, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. She's got a surprising number of citations on GScholar. According to A Hypersexual Society (Springer, 2008), "Cosmopolitan magazine once described Ava Cadell as "one of America’s leading Sexologists"". I can't read the whole chapter, but there's definitely some biographical background on Cadell. Perhaps someone with institutional access could look deeper. pburka (talk) 20:06, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cadell's entry got a rough start as a result of paid editing, but the many requested edits on the talk page include sufficient sources to meet WP:GNG. In addition to her career as an actor, Cadell is also a frequent source for comments about stories related to sexuality in newspapers and magazines. Jaireeodell (talk) 22:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Aegon UK. Aoidh (talk) 02:39, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retiready[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE search did not turn up any in-depth coverage for this platform. Maduant (talk) 17:16, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Websites, and United Kingdom. Maduant (talk) 17:16, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Aegon UK, the company that operates it. Skynxnex (talk) 18:47, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Aegon UK per the above arguments. desmay (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Richard Marx discography. Aoidh (talk) 02:39, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Channel V at the Hard Rock Live (Richard Marx album)[edit]

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

Non notable EP album with zero reviews.

PROD removed with no improvements DonaldD23 talk to me 03:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music. DonaldD23 talk to me 03:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Richard Marx discography#Extended plays: Found no additional coverage. PROD was removed by article creator without explanation so that's likely easy to disregard. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 15:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In regards to not being on the discography page, they were listed. I hadn't noticed they were gone. So someone removed them and I must've missed it. Plus this is a rare sought after album and this is one of the few places where people can find the track listingJeremyeyork (talk) 23:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Absoutely none of that argument applies to the notablity requirements for WP:NALBUM, which it would need to in order to keep this article. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:01, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:15, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 16:53, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NALBUM. This article is entirely unsourced and it's just a track list. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:25, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Richard Marx discography as is common procedure (as opposed to deletion) because there is evidence that the album exists and the title could be a search term. But other than that, the album was completed unnoticed by the media. Also, it was not necessary to relist this AfD multiple times because the one "keep" vote above is not based on policy and violates WP:ATA. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:38, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Richard Marx discography (as an ATD) where the album title appears, as it could be useful for some readers as Doomsdayer points out. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:14, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Richard Marx discography. While there isn't consensus as to the target in this discussion, finding one doesn't require a 3rd relist. Opted for this as it is more precise than the artist's article, but that can be handled editorially if consensus develops for another target. Star Mississippi 13:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Live in USA 1988/92[edit]

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

Non notable unofficial (bootleg) album with zero reviews.

PROD removed with no improvements. DonaldD23 talk to me 03:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music. DonaldD23 talk to me 03:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Richard Marx: Found no additional coverage. PROD was removed by article creator without explanation so that's likely easy to disregard. Not mentioned on his discography page but if an entry is added then redirect to the appropriate section of that instead. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 15:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In regards to not being on the discography page, they were listed. I hadn't noticed they were gone. So someone removed them and I must've missed it.Jeremyeyork (talk) 23:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Absoutely none of that argument applies to the notablity requirements for WP:NALBUM, which it would need to in order to keep this article. In addition, this is not an official release by his record company and also fails WP:UNRELEASED. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 16:53, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Richard Marx discography, as is common procedure for a non-notable album by a notable artist. This album does/did exist but nobody in the media commented on its release. Meanwhile, it was not really necessary to relist this AfD multiple times, because the single "keep" vote above is not even close to policy-based. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:31, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Richard Marx discography. Sandstein 09:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Live Music Hall Koln 1992[edit]

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

Non notable unofficial (bootleg) album with zero reviews.

PROD and notability tag removed with no improvements. DonaldD23 talk to me 03:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music. DonaldD23 talk to me 03:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Richard Marx: Found no additional coverage. PROD was removed by article creator without explanation so that's likely easy to disregard. Not mentioned on his discography page but if an entry is added then redirect to the appropriate section of that instead. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 15:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In regards to not being on the discography page, they were listed. I hadn't noticed they were gone. So someone removed them and I must've missed it.Jeremyeyork (talk) 23:42, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Absoutely none of that argument applies to the notablity requirements for WP:NALBUM, which it would need to in order to keep this article. In addition, this is not an official release by his record company and also fails WP:UNRELEASED. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 16:53, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Richard Marx discography as is common procedure. It was not necessary to relist this AfD multiple times because the one "keep" vote above is not based on policy and violates WP:ATA. As for this album, I can find very little about it beyond its basic existence. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:35, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It is not contested that the WP:GNG sourcing requirements are not met. The "keep" opinion that " India doesn't have a history of reviewing films" is unpersuasive because the frequency of sources is not relevant to WP:GNG (or indeed WP:V): Wikipedia has articles only on well-sourced topics, and if a topic has few sources, then it will have few articles. Sandstein 09:31, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thalamura[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM. One review cited, but nothing else notable found in a WP:BEFORE. Previously deleted in PROD, but REFUNDED. Tagged for notability DonaldD23 talk to me 00:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: India doesn't have a history of reviewing films. I think one movie review from Gulf News is significant as the film was released in 1993 and review was published in 2000 and the other reason for which I think it is significant review because not every non notable films of India appears in Gulf News as a review because Gulf News is newspaper of Dubai and this film is from India. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 02:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - LordVoldemort728 said it all. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep: per LordVoldemort728. SuperSharanya (talk) 13:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)~~ [reply]
Delete per nom as the referencing currently available and per my WP:BEFORE neither pass WP:GNG nor WP:NFILM. One review is deficient to pass NFILM#1, which explicitly requires multiple reviews, likewise, WP:GNG's requirement of multiple sources are failed. The other references currently provided include a database entry and a trivial mention, both failing significant coverage. My search on Google, Google Books, and The Wikipedia Library found some trivial mentions that likewise fail significant coverage.

With regards to the argument that India doesn't have a history of reviewing films..., it might be an argument to ignore WP:NFILM consequently of the film being distributed in an older era and that Gulf News is newspaper of Dubai and this film is from India. This is acceptable when used sparingly to ignore NFILM/GNG. However, I dispute this characterisation as firstly, the review is published in 2000, which, according to references from the Gulf News page, was after the news organisation established a local bureau in New Delhi from 1995 with the aim of providing better local coverage (by 2000 Gulf News has also established Internet coverage). As such, I don't think it's especially significant that the film received a review from a UAE organisation given that Gulf News already had a bureau in Delhi with the aim of providing enhanced local coverage (which would likely mean reviews of local films, including this one), and that it would be insufficient to override the failures of notability guidelines. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 00:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CU note SuperSharanya above is the sock of a blocked user. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 16:53, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Aoidh (talk) 02:41, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cainnear (name)[edit]

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

Set index with only one article. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 23:43, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:21, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article has lots of appropriate references from a variety of sources and uses reputable sources also. How might I improve it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert444444 (talk • contribs) 12:10, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The name itself has some religious, spiritual, historical, and national (Irish) merits as for it to be associated with Irish people, Catholicism, and Irish history in general. However, I am curious to see what fellow editors think of its notability as all sources out there that I am aware of are passing mentions.AmshitBalcon (talk) 23:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a name which could have a small article, and a list function, but clearly does need some work. SeoR (talk) 20:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~. If this title is kept, its content needs to be completely culled and a very simply stub retained. Almost none of the links (I dare not call them references to be honest) support the text in the manner they are used. Frankly I'm having a hard time seeing passed that mess to offer a reasoned !vote recommendation. (I also note that the Conaire (saint) article already contains a "list of saints named Cainder/Cainnear/etc"; And so I have CFORK/redundancy concerns...) Guliolopez (talk) 02:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Having spent a chunk of time (and then some) reviewing, fixing and updating the sources/text, it seems that GNG may be met. And, while some content and CFORK issues remain, there probably is a case to be made for retention. Guliolopez (talk) 05:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 16:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Grand Duchy of Flandrensis. History is under the redirect should sources eventuate Star Mississippi 13:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Niels Vermeersch[edit]

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

Subject is solely notable for creating a micronation, Grand Duchy of Flandrensis. I was going to just be bold and redirect, but I thought I'd give it a chance to go through AFD. I personally believe this article should just rediect to the micronation. Angryapathy (talk) 16:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Environment, and Belgium. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:48, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Following the phenomenon of micronationalism since a few years, Niels Vermeersch is one of the few 21-century micronationalists mentioned in several independent sources, incl. academic publications. Mostly his influence on the development of environmental micronationalism and being invited to ChangeNow Paris (a non-micronational event) to speak about it and using the concept of micronationalism within a non-profit, made this figure notable enough. See also other articles on the Category Micronational leaders to compare content and sources Delle89 (talk) 09:49, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Delle89:, Can you share (or better yet add to the article) the sources you have found from IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth? // Timothy :: talk 00:55, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 16:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't really understand anything about "IS RS with SIGCOV"? Should I upload a copy of the sources somewhere? I still have digital copies from the newspapers and interviews from during my paper and also own the books. If you are more specific, I can certainly provide the necessary documentation . Thanks for your help! Delle89 (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Notability is largely WP:INHERITED from Grand Duchy of Flandrensis. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:46, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Aoidh (talk) 02:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Harrison (runner)[edit]

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

Non-notable athlete. Possible COI/autobio issues. Has been back and forth between drafts and main space a couple of times already, hence next stop AfD. The career achievements don't appear to meet any of the WP:NTRACK criteria. None of the sources cited satisfy WP:GNG, and a search finds nothing better. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and United States of America. DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:23, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Number 7 in the WP:NTRACK criteria states the athlete has to own a mark that placed him in the top 12 for the calendar year.

In February 2018, Harrison ran 1:46.83 in Boston, MA. That was the 6th fastest time in the U.S., and the 16th fastest time in the world that indoor season. Verified on the IAAF World Athletics archive.

And the sources for this article are clearly reliable and significant. Not sure why you feel this way, but he’s pretty clearly a notable athlete. He’s not an Olympic gold medalist or world record holder, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t notable. Kj2023 (talk) 05:15, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - last time I checked #16 is not in the top 12. However, even if they were in the top 12, that only means that they might be notable. Which this person is not. Add to that the COI/UPE editing, and well, delete please.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:55, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 16:49, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, he is slightly notable by having the 6th fastest time in the U.S. Davidgoodheart (talk) 04:58, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:16, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The draft version can be submitted via AfC when appropriate. Aoidh (talk) 02:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 EuroCup Basketball Playoffs[edit]

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

Disputed draftification by copy and paste move. WP:TOOSOON, oft declined WP:AFC draft. Unreferenced - or one reference that is not particularly useful. Sensible outcome Draftify 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:48, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Basketball, and Europe. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:33, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Can be recreated when the event starts. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:58, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Administrative note there is already a draft written by the same author, so if "draftify" is the outcome, this article can (should?) just be deleted, leaving the extant draft. (please ping on reply) Primefac (talk) 07:16, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Several hits on a Google search show details about its date, time, etc and it’s reasonable to believe much more WP:SIGCOV will be available once it gets underway. It is certainly not WP:TOOSOON because the event starts in LESS THAN TWO WEEKS. (it is possible this AFD will still be open when the tournament starts). Per WP:CRYSTAL, an article on a future event is appropriate if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. (Y based coverage already present such as schedule announcements) and if the subject matter [is] of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. (Y based on articles of previous editions of this tournament). Frank Anchor 17:15, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to speedy keep as the tournament started on 11 April and the first round has been completed. Therefore any concerns of being too soon are now moot. Already passes WP:N per my above argument. Frank Anchor 21:47, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - leave draft in draftspace. If and when there is enough WP:SIGCOV, the article can be moved to mainspace. However, due to the behavior of the article creator, there should be a caveat that it must go through AfC.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:52, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 16:45, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this copy of the article, as per Onel5969. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Aoidh (talk) 02:45, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Enya Umanzor[edit]

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

Non-notable streamer. She seems to enjoy Blistex, but that's nothing we can use to prove notability. Social media, mentions on non-RS websites, not meeting notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 15:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 15:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Again, posting videos to video-sharing platforms such as Vine and YouTube does not make you a streamer. As I explained on the talk page for the article, most of what appears in the article is taken from secondary sources such as Schön!, Tubefilter, The Face, and Paper, all of which are well-established publications with no noted instances of factual inaccuracy. These sources all establish her notability in the text ("best known for posting absurdly funny, sometimes dead serious videos", "at 23 years of age she is considered a reference in the world of YouTube and content creation", "budding social media star", etc.) and six out of the 11 references on the page are articles from publications unaffiliated with Umanzor and entirely focused on her and her career. The only social media post here is used as a reference here is for her birthday, which is viable per WP:ABOUTSELF. benǝʇᴉɯ 16:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:23, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Streaming video sites are for streamers, perhaps not a live streamer. The interview with Schon is a primary source. YR Media appears to be a press release. Deadline is barely a paragraph. The Paper article is perhaps the only useful one. She's still not at GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 16:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails GNG and BIO. Source eval:

Youtube :: 1. "About enya umanzor". YouTube.
Instagram :: 2. ^ @enyaumanzor (January 23, 2020). "21 🦦" – via Instagram.
Interview :: 3. ^ Jump up to:a b Córdoba, Gabriel (January 8, 2023). "Interview: Enya Umanzor". Schön!. Retrieved March 29, 2023.
Promo, not IS RS with SIGCOV :: 4. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Weiss, Geoff (September 18, 2020). "Vlogger, Actress, And Podcaster Enya Umanzor Signs With A3 Artists Agency". Tubefilter. Retrieved March 30, 2023.
Interview :: 5. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e Wickes, Jade (January 30, 2023). "Enya Umanzor on her obsession with Blistex and life-changing mascara". The Face. Retrieved March 29, 2023.
Interview :: 6. ^ Ruano, Michelle (June 14, 2018). "YouTube Influencer Enya Umanzor Gets Real". YR Media. Retrieved March 29, 2023.
Interview :: 7. ^ Jump up to:a b c Richards, Bailey (August 19, 2022). "Enya Umanzor and Drew Phillips Talk 'Emergency Intercom'". Paper. Retrieved March 29, 2023.
Promo :: 8. ^ Hipes, Patrick (March 22, 2019). "Brat's Spring Plans Include More Original Series, Sales & Marketing Push". Deadline. Retrieved March 30, 2023.
Photo diary :: 9. ^ Abad, Mario (October 11, 2022). "Enya Umanzor's Very Unfiltered Miu Miu Show Photo Diary". Paper. Retrieved March 30, 2023.
Promo :: 10. ^ Dunn, Frankie (November 17, 2021). "An exclusive look inside the new Heaven by Marc Jacobs zine". i-D. Retrieved March 30, 2023.
Promo :: 11. ^ "Bimbaylolized: BIMBA Y LOLA's AW22 campaign has landed". Dazed. October 20, 2022. Retrieved March 30, 2023.

BEFORE showed nothing that meets IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per V, BLP and BIO. // Timothy :: talk 12:18, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, I already explained on the talk page why the interviews are viable sources, since almost everything taken from them is from outside of the interview portions of the article, meaning that it is taken from secondary sources. For a second time, you have put a list of the sources and referred to most of them as "promo" or "interview" without any explanation, then listed basic Wikipedia policies as your rationale for voting to delete the article. The only article on this list that is explicitly promotional is the Dazed article that specifies above the byline that it is "in partnership with Bimby [sic] Y Lola" and it is not a promotion of Umanzor. The rest are all articles about subjects within the purview of their respective magazines, and it is therefore most likely that these articles were not written with the express purpose of promoting their subjects or providing puffery, especially since one of them is a confirmed RS, one is confirmed to have no consensus on its reliability, and the rest are generally reliable though they don't appear on the list. benǝʇᴉɯ 15:53, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just use interviews, you need news articles about her, that's the problem here. Try to keep your rebuttals short, a wall of text doesn't help. Oaktree b (talk) 05:15, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: Please review WP:GNG and WP:INTERVIEWS. benǝʇᴉɯ 11:01, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes interviews can be used, and we need extensive discussions for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 14:12, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Already discussed on talk page, notability doesn't established, primary and unreliable sources most of them are interviews and social links, fails WP:SIGCOV. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 06:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pony Springs, Nevada[edit]

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

No evidence of an "unincorporated community" at this location. This spot was never anything more than a watering hole, rest stop and highway landmark, and I found no significant coverage that would meet NPLACE or GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 15:32, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Nevada. –dlthewave ☎ 15:32, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete I found a couple of references to ranching in the area, but my impression is that more of a general area is meant than a specific town. Mangoe (talk) 04:04, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus is that as there is a well-sources Spanish Wikipedia, the subject meets the criteria for notability. That article should be used to improve the English language article. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 10:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco Cabrera Santos[edit]

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

general notability guidelines MrBauer24 (talk) 14:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MrBauer24 (talk) 14:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Nomader (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: MrBauer24, this article easily meets GNG -- it's clear that WP:BEFORE wasn't followed here. Per B7, "check if there are interlanguage links, also in the sidebar, which may lead to more developed and better-sourced articles." There is an extremely detailed and well-sourced article at Spanish Wikipedia ([17]), which clearly shows that he passes GNG with flying colors. This nomination should be withdrawn, and the article should have cleanup tags added instead of being deleted as AfD is not cleanup. Nomader (talk) 15:17, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Nomader. Could you please list WP:THREE sources supporting that WP:NBIO is met for this topic? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:29, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I had to choose, it would probably include these three: [18][19][20]. I just noticed that Santos died in 2010 and that there are many references from the time that were not archived, but the subject definitely meets WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. If someone can provide English sources, maybe from coverage of elections, it would be even better. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:31, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 𝘚𝘢𝘯𝘦𝘮𝘈𝘺𝘩𝘢𝘯07 16:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have to join Nomader's comment per WP:BEFORE and point out how extensive the article in Spanish is compared to this one. I have added a tag inviting translation accordingly. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Aoidh (talk) 02:47, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Booting process of Windows NT Setup before Vista[edit]

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

Isn't this rather close to a WP:NOTHOWTO page? It just describes what happens, where to find things, what keys to use... Not what sets this apart, what is its history, how it was received, ... Basically, it is a "plot summary", a manual, instead of an encyclopedic article. No idea if the latter is feasible here, but even then WP:TNT would be better than trying to turn this into an acceptable article I think. Fram (talk) 14:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this article is similar to articles like Booting process of Linux and Booting process of Windows NT before Vista where it has a parent page, Windows Setup, and the article offers more detailed information on how the process functions. I don't really see the issue with having the booting process on a separate article considering how long it is compared to the size of the parent article. Alternatively, since I created this article out a section that was located at Booting process of Windows NT before Vista, it could work as a section of Windows Setup, which would be a better place for it than that article. – BrandonXLF (talk) 14:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article was moved to Booting process of Windows NT Setup before Vista – BrandonXLF (talk) 15:03, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of reliable secondary sources; nearly all of the sources are primary and the one source that isn't ("Windows 2000 server professional reference") is pointing to a page number that doesn't exist, and I concur parts read like a manual. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic receives very substantial coverage in Boswell's Inside Windows Server 2003 and Inside Windows 2000 Server from Pearson's New Riders imprint, Boyce's Windows NT Workstation 4.0 Advanced Technical Reference from Person's "Que" imprint, and less detailed but still substantial coverage in Gardinier et al.'s Windows 2000 Complete Reference from McGraw-Hill. Notability seems solid, but that leaves the concerns about the article's tone. IMO, the article reads more like an encyclopedic technical article rather than a user instruction manual. I'm personally a big fan of obscure technical articles and wish we had more, though I know they're not too popular. Fortunately, WP:TECHNICAL is pretty lenient on "intrinsically complex" topics like this. The article has some flaws and does read like a guide at times, but it doesn't merit deletion. DFlhb (talk) 01:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, also large amounts of uncited, unverifiable content, primary sources and do we really need to memorialise the boot up sequence of a defunct operating system? There are other places to perhaps preserve that experience, I don't think WP is one such. Best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandermcnabb (talk • contribs) 09:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DFlhb. Primary sources from Microsoft need to be replaced by those book sources, however. I may attempt to do so later. DigitalIceAge (talk) 16:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep From what I have seen from the articles written by @DigitalIceAge:, they know how to get excellent sources about (older) computing subjects. I also saw some sources that could be utilized. This subject does meet the WP:GNG and should be kept. PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The discussion was marred by some canvassing and the participation of some SPAs. Ignoring those, there are valid policy-based arguments for both "keep" and "delete". As this article is years old, draftifying is not appropriate. Hence I close this as "no consensus" with no prejudice to opening a new debate in 1 or2 months time. Randykitty (talk) 11:45, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shree Venkatesh Films[edit]

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

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

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

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

The entire article is based on shoddy, self-published references. This page contains a lot of advertising. Look at the reference number from 1 to 18. fails WP:SIGCOV. Nick Jamie2 (talk) 11:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Companies, and India. Nick Jamie2 (talk) 11:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep :Hi, Nick Jamie2

SVF is a well-known entertainment and media company based in Kolkata, India. It has been producing and distributing award-winning and blockbuster films in Eastern India mostly in Bengali language since 1995.

I have found large number of articles published by renowned newspapers and magazines like The Telegraph, Times of India, Planet Bollywood, Film Companion etc in the "References" section which further proves the authenticity of the information provided.

I strongly recommend against the deleting the page because I, as a moviebuff look for the plot summary, lead cast etc. of all the films produced by SVF in a single page. It's a one-stop shop for all the information that one might be looking for about SVF films. Deletion of such a Wikipedia page which is so rich in content would be a great loss. Anwesha Sen Sarma (talk) 12:38, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 12:32, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The chart showing every film win is longer than the article itself. There is nothing notable to be found in RS that I can see and this looks PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 15:27, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Shree Venkatesh Films is by far the largest film production company in Bengali cinema. They have a ton of significant coverage in secondary sources. For example, The Week, MediaNama, Scroll, Economic Times. Their notability is pretty well established. The article is in a poor state and needs to be rewritten to conform to encyclopedic standards. But that should not be the grounds for deletion of the most prominent production company in all of Eastern India. Nikh Nori (talk) 07:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Draftify. Shree Venkatesh Films is a notable company; the problem is that the article is based on company web-pages instead of what newspapers and scholarly articles say. AFD is not cleanup.
I agree that the giant chart does not belong in the main article on Shree Venkatesh Films. If you look at the article on Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer it has a wikilink to Lists of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer films, which is a much better way of handling it. (The chart would be fine for a company that only produced 5 films.) -- Toddy1 (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hope these articles published on multiple leading Indian newspapers or media houses prove the platform's notability-

https://www.theweek.in/webworld/features/society/rise-shree-venkatesh-films-resurgence-bengali-cinema.html

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/media/entertainment/meet-the-duo-behind-shree-ventakesh-films-who-helped-turn-around-bengali-cinema/articleshow/28355473.cms

https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/companies/film-production-house-svf-plans-childrenonly-content/article10004780.ece

https://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/shree-venkatesh-films-to-make-25-films-in-3-yrs-spend-rs-100cr-118011200799_1.html

Many other external articles are there in the References section as well.

Also as you said, the giant chart showing the list of films produced by the company is not on the main article because it's a better and easier way to keep track of all the films. Even Yash Raj Films, one of the leading Indian film production companies, has a similar wiki link to List of films released by Yash Raj Films. Anwesha Sen Sarma (talk) 06:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep SVF is most famous OTT platform in India. Passes WP:NCORP guideline of Wikipedia. 2409:40E3:101A:E46B:ADA8:A18C:BB9:5318 (talk) 05:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the basis of the four sources listed not far above. The first is based on a press release, the second is based on an interview with a member of the company, the third is also not independent, and the fourth is almost unreadable, showing a rapidly-changing series of unrelated news articles. Maproom (talk) 11:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:GNG. SuperSharanya (talk) 13:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notability is not inherited. Many of this company's films are notable. That does not make this company notable. UtherSRG (talk) 13:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The references mentioned above by Anwesha Sen Sarma appear to meet the criteria for establishing notability in that they discuss the topic company in detail, it just isn't 100% clear how independent the articles are hence the "weak" keep !vote. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Films produced by this company are popular and notable which doesn’t make the company notable. Most Sources are promotional. Don’t Get Hope And Give Up — Preceding undated comment added 13:52, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is enough significant coverage in the references provided in this discussion from reliable sources to enable a pass of WP:CORPDEPTH in my view so that deletion is unnecessary Atlantic306 (talk) 23:01, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:33, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep: This is no.1 OTT platform in India. No-one can't beat this. Passes Wiki all guidelines. 103.170.182.2 (talk) 09:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that some blatant attempted canvassing is happening here. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Maybe the company is notable, I don't know. But the article itself in its current state is a long way from acceptable. Throw it away and create a new draft, starting from the beginning, which should be reliable independent published sources. Maproom (talk) 07:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify: Clearly not ready for primetime, I don't have a strong opinion on whether the article can be salvaged or if it's better to start from scratch. – Stuart98 ( Talk • Contribs) 20:06, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Decent article, but it needs serious work and reads like an advertisement to me. The list of award-winning movies is bigger than the rest of the article put together, and too few references (seems to be mostly self-researched with no substantial references to the list of movies/shows produced). Definitely not bad enough to delete though. Spaceeditor123 (talk) 21:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The canvassing by 103.170.182.2 (identified by Cordless Bob} is very concerning. However, I believe that the sources found by Anwesha Sen Sarma gets this article over the threshold for WP:NCORP. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:17, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The keep rationales do not appear to adequately rebut the concerns about lack of sourcing that would show notability per WP:GNG. Aoidh (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Outreach Radio[edit]

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

I'm not seeing any meaningful coverage that shows this minor radio station passing WP:GNG. Most of the content has been added by a (declared) COI editor and the vast majority of sources cited are either primary sources or passing mentions. The only genuinely independent sources cited are local newspapers describing a single charity dance run by the radio station. WP:BEFORE did not reveal a rich seam of untapped sources, and I could not find any specific coverage of this station.

WP:NRADIO did not make it as a guideline, so radio stations have to pass WP:GNG and I can't see any way in which this one does. Flip Format (talk) 13:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, United Kingdom, and England. Flip Format (talk) 13:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the other stations that are available as notable stations worth having as Wikipedia articles in the region of broadcast (Hampshire), Outreach Radio and Outreach Dance are definitely notable enough to remain on Wikipedia.

In the least COI-manner possible, I would like to emphasise the fact that Outreach Radio and Outreach Dance remain as the only independent regional radio stations in the region, following the buyouts of major conglomerates in the region over the course of the last few years [21].

Apart from the community stations of the region, who do not have nearly the same coverage as Outreach Radio and Outreach Dance, there remains no "Independent" radio stations in South Hampshire, in the sense that they have fully localised programming, created by local presenters for their region - the closest comparison would be Wave 105, however they are officially part of the Hits Radio network, owned by Bauer Media Audio UK and are more aligned with their sister stations, rather than other independents such as those running Outreach Radio Ltd.

Should the two stations' notablilty, despite their size, be of question, I would like to also remind readers of this discussion for two Southampton-based community radio stations: Voice FM 103.9 and Unity 101, both of which are significantly smaller in coverage compared to Outreach Radio and Outreach Dance. In terms of sources, these two community radio stations also include information written by those involved in the station, which brings into question why editors' usage of content written by members of the station is questioned.

I would like to emphasise that Outreach Radio and their sister station are not minor stations, as in order to have been on the same DAB multiplex as competitors and be on the Now South Hampshire DAB multiplex, Outreach Radio would have to have a commercial DSP license, which it does. In order for clarification, I have cited proof of this from OfCom's website [22]. It is also worth noting that Outreach Radio and Outreach Dance, as mentioned in their articles, were the first stations to join the UK Radio Portal[23], the first and only Hybrid Broadcast Broadband TV station to provide multiple radio stations on a single Freeview Play channel.

I would like to address my speculation that @Flip Format may have had an undeclared COI that those involved in the discussion may have not been aware of, and that it is extremely uncanny that Outreach Radio is questioned for its integrity and notability as a regional service to the people of Hampshire, just as the station begins its transtion from Local DAB to multiple Small-scale DAB multiplexes, which technically speaking puts the station under a slightly different, but no less relevant, coverage area to its competitors on the regional DAB multiplex. Various factors including the increased coverage into towns that the Now South Hampshire multiplex does not cover, such as Salisbury and Basingstoke, is the station's reasoning for this change [24], however it seems that Outreach Radio's notability as a result of this is put under scrutiny, despite competitors such as Nation Radio UK using the same methods as Outreach Radio for their increased coverage. The proposed removal of this Wikipedia article also appears to be an attempt to damage/reduce the credibility of this radio station, versus the other corporate-owned radio stations that would remain.

Should the mention of Outreach Radio, Outreach Dance, or their partnership with Peter Symonds College on Wikipedia ever be questioned for its integrity, notability, or relevance to local and regional radio in Hampshire, I would like to remind readers of this discussion once more that Outreach Radio Ltd. remains the only independently-run company based in Hampshire with station coverage comparable to that of commercial competitors, and deleting this article would create a bias in favour of the corporate conglomerates by listing their radio stations, their predecessors, and their history only. SpokOfMinecraft (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop accusing other editors of having an "undeclared COI". WP:AGF. Flip Format (talk) 10:26, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not, I'm just justifying why I had mentioned it in the first place. Besides, my concern for this is equally relevant to this discussion as I would like to respectfully point out my concern for your tendency to want to see lots of articles deleted, and I feel that I am within my rights to respectfully challenge this. SpokOfMinecraft (talk) 10:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as what we have delved into within this discussion it would probably be preferred by many if we continued the discussion of @Flip Format's activities on their talk page, I would prefer we focus on the discussion of the main topic at hand, that being Outreach Radio and Outreach Dance's notability and whether they should remain as pages on Wikipedia, and I would like to invite any external contributors who have seen this discussion so far to contribute, so it does not remain a discussion between a select few. SpokOfMinecraft (talk) 10:50, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re "WP:NRADIO did not make it as a guideline", from that page:

==== Broadcast radio stations ====

A licensed broadcast radio station must meet the general notability guideline. It is likely to do so if it fulfills both of the following:

Has an established broadcasting history: the station must have been constructed, begun broadcasting, and received its permanent operating authorization from the relevant authority, not merely having been authorized for construction.
Originates (or has originated) at least some of its own programming.

As far as I'm aware, Outreach Radio is compliant with both of those requirements. Maybe I misunderstood you - are you saying that WP:NRADIO is not a valid set of guidelines?

It is broadcast 24x7x365 from Winchester, Basingstoke, Portsmouth, and Salisbury Small-Scale DAB multiplexes (a population coverage of 400k+ people - Ofcom, indoor coverage figures). (Salisbury, as of very recently - the page needs to be updated!).

It's a self-supporting radio station in the South of England. I have no idea of it's listening figures. Do you think it's of insufficient interest to warrant a presence on Wikipedia? Samuraibrian (talk) 20:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BCASTOUTCOMES. Flip Format (talk) 11:23, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re WP:BCASTOUTCOMES regarding the guidelines that this page SpokOfMinecraft (talk) 11:39, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...I pressed enter before I finished typing! As I was saying...

Re WP:BCASTOUTCOMES and the criteria it has, a response to each one that applies to Outreach Radio:

==== Broadcast media ====

The general notability guideline is the guideline of import for determining the notability of broadcast media outlets, per a 2021 RfC.

Licensed broadcast radio and TV stations are generally deleted if they lack significant coverage in reliable sources.

Some sources are from Outreach Radio's website, however this can be changed with non-COI websites, such as Wohnort [25]

If a station is devoted to the rebroadcast of another service, it should be redirected to that page or to a list of such stations; if not, or if it rebroadcasts multiple services and thus has no adequate target, a redirect to a list of stations in a region may be considered as an alternative to deletion.

All programming is original, so this should not be an issue.

In regards specifically to the sources used on the page, I will now update them with non-COI websites, however following this change is there still an issue that warrants it for deletion? SpokOfMinecraft (talk) 12:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BCASTOUTCOMES is clear that the WP:GNG is the main criterion when determining the notability of a radio station for Wikipedia. It is well worth reading the GNG. Sites such as Wohnort (which simply lists all DAB radio stations in the world) do not make the cut - coverage needs to be independent, reliable and significant, ie not an entry in a list of radio stations.

On a related note, Wikipedia isn't here for you to use to promote your own thing - see WP:NOTYOU. You, User:Samuraibrian and undeclared WP:COI editor User:OsmanSC all exist here pretty much entirely to edit the pages on Outreach Radio and related matters. Flip Format (talk) 14:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. - Surely Wohnort is suitable as a source since it is a "list" of all world-wide DAB stations, as well as being "independent of the subject"?

As for Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, we're not trying to recruit people to join the station, merely updating it with coverage-related information that is relevant to the history of the station. Nor is it an opinion piece or scandal mongering, as it has no topics relating to that sort of content.

I understand that self-promotion and advertising is an issue, but surely the efforts we have made to make sure all information is from content not written by any of us or someone we know still makes the page relevant enough to keep on Wikipedia? SpokOfMinecraft (talk) 15:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wohnort is a list of all DAB radio stations in the world - it does not count as significant coverage. Significant coverage in a reliable and independent source would be something like articles specifically about Outreach Radio (ie not just mentioning it in passing) in a newspaper or radio trade publication. I'm not going to reply further here as this is a space for the AfD discussion. Flip Format (talk) 15:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A slight side note, but have noticed you have been involved in another radio-related article deletion that you have submitted for deletion twice.

Re Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Kirk (presenter) (2nd nomination), I do have to say I agree with @Rillington regarding your mass article cull. If you don’t mind me asking, is there a COI on your end that we should be aware of, considering your involvement in the deletion so many radio-related Wikipedia pages, particularly radio stations and presenters? SpokOfMinecraft (talk) 16:02, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. Flip Format (talk) 17:17, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If Wohnort is not considered significant coverage to justify its use of a source, why did you, rather than flagging the article for deletion, not search for significant sources to replace them? SpokOfMinecraft (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the process of nominating for AfD is WP:BEFORE. I did search for significant coverage of this topic prior to nomination and was unable to find any. I'm not going to engage further here to answer general questions on Wikipedia policy, as this space is for the AfD discussion on the article. I will say that I don't think you are using the encyclopedia in good faith - please read WP:SPA. Flip Format (talk) 09:29, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern, and would like to point out that since you have nominated this article for AfD, I have been in the process of adding more credible sources to support information regarding certain topics that are included - not just Wohnort. This has resulted in becoming an incredibly arduous process, however it is slowly being updated with relevant sources that are either from non-COI websites that have been used prior to the nomimation, or are more than just a passing mention. I would like to also point out that everyone you have discussed with so far during this discussion are fairly new to Wikipedia, and for that reason have not contributed that heavily to the encyclopedia as a whole. Please read WP:DNB and WP:DCASAS. SpokOfMinecraft (talk) 15:59, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I fully explained my reasons for 'having a go' at creating a Wikipedia page, in reply to User:Drmies on my User page.

Apart from the bot welcomes & invitations, and suchlike, I have found the process intimidating, not to say discouraging. That, alone, is the reason I have not contributed further content to Wikipedia. Samuraibrian (talk) 15:38, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A well researched article with plenty of independent references. Rillington (talk) 02:24, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article has been WP:REFBOMBed by COI editors (the directors of the radio station and a friend) with lots of passing mentions, entries in directories like Wohnort, repeated references to the same page over and over and no WP:SIGCOV. They have also attempted to do the same with this AfD, flooding it with lengthy screeds in an attempt to stifle the vote. Flip Format (talk) 07:26, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If entries such as Wohnort are still an issue, it should be noted that they are also supported by other reliable sources that convey the same information needed to support the article. Following this comment I have now removed the sources from Wohnort and replaced them with more reliable sources that are from the operators of the Small-Scale DAB multiplexes in question (to clarify further this is not another COI as I have no connection with the multiplex operators). It should also be noted that only three of the sources used in the entire article are used more than once, which I have personally seen to be the case on many Wikipedia entries. My main statement (top of this discussion) clarifies all the questions raised in this discussion so far and fully justifies the need for this article. SpokOfMinecraft (talk) 13:55, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am pleased that you have found independent sources and this does remove potential COI, and COI is a reasonable concern to make about any article. I would also like to add that I do not think that the article is written in a way which makes it look like an advertisement for the station. Instead I consider it to be written in a way which gives a good, independent and well referenced history of the development of the station. Rillington (talk) 05:19, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add my thoughts to this. Myself and many people I know listen to this station with it being the only proper source of local information with all the other stations being bland corporates operating at a national network. Outreach Radio is the one station that is bucking this trend and it looks clear to me that the comments put here to try and get this removed have been done by someone working for these corporates against this fantastic local station. If you look at other pages that he has tried to remove it is fairly clear! This should absolutely remain on Wikipedia! Thesaintsouthampton (talk) 19:44, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

— Thesaintsouthampton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Flip Format (talk) 15:42, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is true - It is possible that Thesaintsouthampton is one of our listeners (a pure assumption based on the fact that their user is a reference to one of the local football teams in our coverage area, Southampton FC), as presenters on Outreach Radio have mentioned this discussion on air, allowing listeners to look into it if they wish to do so. I find it very concerning that your immediate response to this person's comment is based purely on the fact that they are a new user, and that you find it necessary to discredit their contribution on this basis and assume they are a single-purpose account. Please read WP:DNB and WP:DCASAS, assume good faith and remember that Wikipedia is a volunteer service, and you should not be targeting new users based on their contributions, or lack thereof. SpokOfMinecraft (talk) 09:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I want to make it clear that I an also advocating for the article on Outreach Dance to be kept. Rillington (talk) 04:47, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh (talk) 13:11, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an ice skating event and the Google Assistant ref are representative of how non-notable this is. Brief mentions in an article about something else is not how we define notability. Nothing found for RS. Oaktree b (talk) 15:00, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The ice skating event was organised and conducted by the radio station and was their first outdoor "event" of this nature - if this not being a notable part of the station's history, it can be omitted from the article. As for the Google Assistant ref, that's me justifying the mention of Google Assistant with that particular source - it doesn't have to be there. In terms of reliability all sources are there to back up the mention of the specific topic on the article and mention Outreach Radio in a sufficient enough way that it is completely impartial. SpokOfMinecraft (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: An impartial and reliable documentation of the only fully-independent regional radio station in Hampshire, with plenty of research and independent sources - see comments above relist for more info. SpokOfMinecraft (talk) 18:22, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

— SpokOfMinecraft (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Flip Format (talk) 15:42, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is true - Though I have had this account for over 8 years, and effectively have been a "lurker" (to save for a better description) until now, I would like to also emphasise that as a young user of Wikipedia I find it very disheartening to be targeted and victimised in this manner, despite having good intentions. Please read WP:DNB, WP:HA and WP:DCASAS. SpokOfMinecraft (talk) 22:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Tekken characters. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hwoarang[edit]

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

Minor Tekken character fails notability guidelines. GlatorNator (talk) 13:02, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:08, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge To List of Tekken characters. Cannot support a standalone article with significant coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:05, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / redirect per Zxcvbnm. Skynxnex (talk) 15:29, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect per Zxcvbnm. Not enough WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Tekken characters. Non-notable minor character. QuicoleJR (talk) 11:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Ashton (musician)[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable on his own, only source in the article is self-published. The few mentions of him in internet search are as band member (Rare Bird). Members of bands are not given individual articles unless they have demonstrated individual notability, per WP:BANDMEMBER TaylorKobeRift (talk) 20:00, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:02, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:03, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rare Bird: not notable outside the band. I can't find a single reliable source on them. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 20:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rare Bird. After gaining some notability in that band, he dwelt for decades behind the scenes as a producer and writer with occasional new projects of his own, but none received any reliable notice. I can find nothing about him outside of that band, and note that there are other people of the same name. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Prominent member of two notable bands. Has an entry in The Encyclopaedia of Popular Music: A - Brown, Lloyd ed Colin Larkin, pub Muze, 2006. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:04, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as well as the encyclopaedia entry mentioned above he does have a small bio at AllMusic here. Will do a full source-search later, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep barely. If there is a consensus to redirect to Rare Bird, no strong objection. // Timothy :: talk 16:03, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to determine whether this decision should be to Keep this article or Redirect it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update I didn't find any extra reliable sources but there are a number of likely book sources but unfortunately they don't have previews/extracts, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:44, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more shot, per Liz.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirectto Rare Bird: No individual notability after that band. AllMusic entry is the exact same as Encyclopaedia one. TaylorKobeRift (talk) 01:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
struck double vote, nomination statement counts as a vote Atlantic306 (talk)
- I apologize for not realizing that. My vote now is to Redirect rather than for Deleting TaylorKobeRift (talk) 10:57, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:01, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The arguments to delete are stronger, but not enough so that I feel comfortable overruling both the numerical majority and the previous admins who did not see enough consensus to close this. I urge editors arguing to keep such pages to focus on the substance (sources counting toward GNG) rather than procedural detail (such as NOTCLEANUP, which is really only applicable as a counter to arguments that ignore GNG, and is not relevant when GNG has not been demonstrated). No prejudice against speedy renomination. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:17, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 NCHC Tournament[edit]

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

This topic lacks sufficient citations and coverage to meet the GNG. Pbritti (talk) 21:03, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Pbritti (talk) 21:03, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Minnesota. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:07, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you realize that this is an ongoing event and much what will be referenced has either just happened or not yet occurred? Don't be so quick with the deletion request for something that's an annual event. PensRule11385 (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : An on-going event that is already the subject of some media coverage (read these two recent sources about the event 1 and 2). More likely to be notable per WP:EVENT; we should wait until the tournament concludes. AmshitBalcon (talk) 21:49, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While there are sources that reference individual teams in the tournament, no sources that explicitly address the tournament have been added to the article yet. The article was converted to redirect before that was undone by the page creator. PensRule11385 would benefit from a less confrontational approach; I created this AfD simply to encourage protocol. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: DetroitFan7 (talk) 01:10, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability is based on available sources, not just those in the article. And AfD is not for cleanup. Rlendog (talk) 13:26, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - none of the keep !votes offers any of the in-depth sourcing necessary to meet WP:GNG. A Google News search turned up a single, very short article on one of the games, not the tournament.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If sources offering SIGCOV exist, please mention them, specifically, in this AFD discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AfD isn't for demanding cleanup or enforcing protocol. A few minute Google search turned up plenty of in-depth coverage about this event.

It is mentioned in Sports Illustrated: https://www.si.com/tv/college-hockey/2023/03/12/st-cloud-state-minnesota-duluth-free-live-stream-college-hockey

And ESPN: https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/35748399/ncaa-mens-frozen-four-2023-atlantic-ecac-big-ten-hockey-east-ccha-nchc-tournament

Along with in numerous alternative outlets, all the way down to local news. https://www.grandforksherald.com/sports/und-hockey/jackson-blake-named-nchc-rookie-of-the-year

I see news updates as the event progresses.

This article should be revised, not deleted. There is more than enough sourcing out there to establish notability under Wikipedia:Notability (events), showing wide coverage in a diversity of sources.

Jo7hs2 (talk) 21:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My request wasn't a demand. Other editors will read over the comments here including, eventually, a closer. Unfortunately, the burden falls on editors arguing to Keep an article to either point out existing sources in the article that support GNG or supply previously unknown sources that do. It's not about a demand, it's about presenting a persuasive argument depending on what you want to see happen with this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Did you change accounts or is this in reference to a different AfD, I didn’t see you comment here previously so I’m confused. Jo7hs2 (talk) 12:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]

Never mind, brain fart. I wasn’t talking about YOUR request to relist, that was in reference to the nom saying they created the AfD to enforce protocol. The relist is entirely appropriate, there wasn’t consensus, and you gave advice for resolving the question. In fairness, I may have misread nom, as well. Looking at the edit history, the AfD came first, so my comment was unnecessary regardless. Jo7hs2 (talk) 12:27, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: per Liz.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article remains insufficiently sourced despite conclusion of tournament. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:01, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:10, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Altovis[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable herbal supplement/alternative medicine, fails WP:GNG. US-Verified (talk) 12:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:03, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with the delete. This is the only mention in scholarly journals I could find [26], mentioned briefly. Oaktree b (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Medicine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:24, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I don’t find anything to indicate notability. Mccapra (talk) 21:36, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing notable about this product in independent sources. It's just a run-of-the-mill herbal supplement with caffeine and ginseng. Nothing particularly groundbreaking or encyclopedic here. KoA (talk) 22:29, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. with a side of SALT. Should notability change, it can go through AfC. Star Mississippi 21:57, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky 1[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not appear to pass WP:NFILM. Nothing found in a BEFORE except a small review in TV Guide. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:45, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Boxing, and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:45, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looking at the history of this article, it looks like it was deleted by AFD way back in 2010, recreated, deleted again in an AFD in 2013, and recreated again. And, after all that, it still does not appear to come close to passing WP:NFILM. It shows up in movie database sites, and has a few very brief mentions here and there, and that is about it. I can find nothing in the way of professional reviews or any actual significant coverage in reliable sources discussing it. Rorshacma (talk) 17:24, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sapano Vaya, Arizona[edit]

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

Could not find any significant coverage to meet GNG or NPLACE. –dlthewave ☎ 12:41, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. –dlthewave ☎ 12:41, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete The only thing I found was one name drop i n a government document suggesting it might be a Papago name. Other than that I found nothing. Mangoe (talk) 04:11, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:11, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rawat Saraswat[edit]

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

~~No evidence or assertion of notability.~~ Paradoctor (talk) 12:37, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, and India. Paradoctor (talk) 12:37, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep by virtue of winning the Sahitya Akademi Award. Mccapra (talk) 20:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:22, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While this article obviously needs a ton of work, this poet won a major literary award and has works represented in Modern Indian Literature, an Anthology: Surveys and Poems and Contemporary Rajasthani Poetry. I'm also finding plenty of citations referencing his work in older academic searches (b/c he died in 1989 his work isn't generally online, although Google Books hits on a good bit of stuff). I've added more information and citations to the article but it still needs work. Per Wikipedia:Notability (people), notability is proved by someone receiving "a well-known and significant award or honor" and the Sahitya Akademi Award definitely counts as that. I'd also argue he "created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work" for his studying and bringing Rajasthani literature to wider attention.--SouthernNights (talk) 20:33, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retract WP:NAUTHOR concerns have been addressed to my satisfaction. Paradoctor (talk) 21:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe that the subject satisfies WP:NAUTHOR since scholarly publications refer to him as 'an eminent writer in Rajasthani", "distinuished scholar of Rajasthani" etc; he has a state level journalism award named after him; and, he seems to bea go-to writer/editor for chapters on modern Rajasthani literature and anthologies, respectively.

That said, I don't believe that he won the Sahitya Akademi Award! Per the author-bio in Modern Indian Literature, an Anthology: Surveys and poems (p. 997), Saraswat won a Rajasthan Sahitya Akademi award (note that this bio was published a few years after the subject's death, and is therefore unlikely to have pre-dated or missed mentioninng the national level award) and I haven't located any source that says otherwise. Pinging @Mccapra and SouthernNights: in case this affects their !vote or if they have other sources for the award. Abecedare (talk) 02:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After digging more into the award I agree with your assessment. But I still believe all the other info still proves his notability, as you said.--SouthernNights (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying that. Given that it’s still a state award and given what else we know about the subject, my !vote is still to keep. Mccapra (talk) 14:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ignoring the "keep" !votes that boil down to OTHERSTUFF, which is not a policy-based rationale, I find a consensus to delete. Randykitty (talk) 11:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 German Darts Grand Prix[edit]

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

Was redirected, since it has an utter lack of independent sourcing, but that was reverted. Would have draftified, but that would have been tantamount to a backdoor deletion since the creator of the article has been banned from editing Darts articles, in part for creating articles like this. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. A redirect was appropriate until perhaps the tournament began to be played, but as with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 PDC Players Championship series, that might not happen. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I don't find that these Tour events have indepedent notability (see list below for this season), but maybe a master article covering the events for the year would be notable (I think the PDC Tour in of itself is notable per year). I recommend merge and redirecting info into a 2023 PDC European Tour article, or simply into the 2023 PDC Pro Tour article for:

Baltic Sea Darts Open
European Darts Open
International Darts Open
German Darts Grand Prix and any additional articles that make up this list, unless someone can show an individual event is independently notable. We've done such things in snooker articles, see 2019–20 Challenge Tour where we merged the individual events into one well written article. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see how this article is any different from any of the other articles about European Tour events that have been created over the years. The event is only three weeks away so deleting it, only to recreate it once the event has happened seems utterly pointless. Dergraaf (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do any of those other articles meet WP:GNG though? Bit pointless saying that we should retain an article based on other articles that also aren't independently notable. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Dergraaf.KatoKungLee (talk) 19:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that neither of the above keep !votes are based in policy.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:10, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And KatoKungLee has also been blocked as a WP:SOCK, so their votes should be ignored as per WP:DENY. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:02, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- They have been unblocked, so their votes are valid.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:07, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence this event passes WP:GNG, as all coverage is primary and/or trivial. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:02, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As far as I know, the eurotour events are shown on national TV of the country where they take place, local and global media write about them. There is also news in the Baltics and Scandinavia about ongoing qualifiers in the PDC-NB zone or about host country qualifiers. Accordingly, this may already indicate a wide coverage. just need to find and add links to it Narambug (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have such coverage? Something being locally broadcast doesn't equal notable. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

and I support the idea of creating a 2023 PDC European Tour for all tournaments in general, because coverage for the full tour entirely should be enough Narambug (talk) 17:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG. Sources in article and BEFORE showed primary, stats, and promo, nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. None of the keep votes above have shown sources for notability. Article on de: [27] shows no sourcing that meets notability. // Timothy :: talk 11:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh (talk) 10:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The event is a yearly occurrence, and appears to get an article every year. The event will occur shortly, so there is no point in draftifying it. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really the question here - is the event notable at all? It having previous entries doesn't make those entries notable. We should never be creating items before they are notable anyway. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It depends what do you mean by notable. My point of view as darts fan is biased, but in my opinion, tournament that is played yearly, that takes 3 days, is played on stage in front of few thousand people, in highest darts "division" that is PDC, is quite notable. Yes, it's not major tournament, but also it's not floor tournament played behind closed doors, or played in WDF division (which is tier lower than PDC). Floor tournaments have only one article per year, which cumulates results from all tournaments and shows only results from QFs and higher (even if 128 players play in those). Haifisch7734 (talk) 20:08, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not what my opinion of notable is, does it meet Wikipedia's rules on notability (for instance WP:GNG?) Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:23, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it depends how in case of sport results we look at those rules. When event meets "significant coverage"? What media has to write about event to say it's notable? What it has to write about it? Is overall article about tournament in one media and specific results in primary source (like how many legs, what were the averages, seedings etc) enough? Those guidelines are not "accurate" enough to discriminate what secondary source is ok and what secondary source is not enough to be "significant coverage". Haifisch7734 (talk) 09:02, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't depend at all. We require reliable non-primary sources that talk in-depth about the subject. Just saying that it's more notable than other events that aren't notable isn't enough. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How about you actually start looking for secondary sources from websites like dartsnews.com, dartn.de, Sport1, Sky Sports etc. 2003:C3:4703:C900:F9E4:A25A:25CB:6414 (talk) 06:28, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; see my comments on precisely the same topic here, made a few minutes ago. The key one is that rather than have this discussion on every single European Tour tournament, some rules need to be written here. 91.110.52.206 (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is: The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline. Which is exactly what is being discussed here. Any sports-specific content there is a guidance on what might be notable, but doesn't trump WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:23, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2023 PDC Pro Tour per Lee, as there isn't enough SIGCOV to justify a separate article.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:07, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion of whether or not there is a substantial amount of available reference material from reliable and independent sources about this particular subject would be helpful toward determination of the outcome. Discussion of the existence of other articles is not.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:28, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the Netherlands, normally there will be coverage by the Algemeen Dagblad (one of the largest national newspapers) after the tournament, as has been done for both The International Darts Open and European Darts Open. Not saying that they will do it again, but when they do it, it can most likely be used as a source which follows WP:GNG. Hope this can help. S9H (talk) 13:38, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

— S9H (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Star Mississippi 01:47, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an editor on the Dutch WP with more than 20k+ edits there. Darts is there not really my interest area as well, but just happened to come across this nomination and knew that there was coverage by the Algemeen Dagblad, so just trying to help.

Regarding the articles, here, here and here are three AD articles about the tournament and this is a piece by The Independent. S9H (talk) 06:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you or somebody else rewrite the "International Darts Open" article with the correlating sources too? 2003:C3:4703:C900:7CE9:6D5C:7C71:CAE (talk) 08:18, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added the sources and submitted as a draft, which can take up to 4 months to be approved. Honestly, I do not know why such a mess is beaing created with darts. DarthBob (talk) 12:33, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The people here should do some research about viewing figures and how darts is always in the top 3/5 most watched sports at least in the UK and Germany, and also compare the prize money to other individual sports apart from Tennis or Golf. A few years ago, I remember how every European Tour or Asian Tour event in Snooker had its own article too, and their prize fund and notability was actually lower than the darts equivalent. 2003:C3:4703:C900:7CE9:6D5C:7C71:CAE (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I totally understand people can have different views on things, and we darts fans might be somehow biased. Me personally, I am a big fan of both darts and snooker, and do not want anyone to think that either of them is a more or less notable sport. I just find it very sad, that suddenly, out of nowhere, darts articles are being flagged and now one article completely deleted. Now profiles of darts players are completely missing a tournament, which happened just a week ago and being just a casual viewer, I would wonder why. Did it not happen? Did someone forget to create it? Even I came here and because I did not read the discussion (yes, I should have), I recreated that article and was given a warning. Now, after reading many discuss pages I see more into this problem, but still do not really understand why. I was told sources are missing...okay, I agree they were missing somewhere, I added the sources. But then I am being told the tournament is not notable. How and what is the criteria, and who is deciding it? Again I was told, that it needs mentions in news like SkySports, SportingLife...I found them. So what more is needed? Definitely do not want to sound offensive, but I feel like whatever we do and provide (and should be sufficient), something else come up.

European Tour events are definitely notable, ranking tournaments. And as I said, if we had this discussion at 2012 when it was starting, it would be understandable. But after more than 10 years and more than 100 tournaments happening, it seems to me like a major step backwards if we should just delete everything or be merging it into an article, where only quarterfinals, semifinals and finals are shown. DarthBob (talk) 13:28, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; European Tour had seperate articles for a decade now and there was never a problem. Yes, it is significant and notable tournament, it is in the news, thousands of people are in the arena, people watch on TV or stream. I agree some articles could be better sourced, but this is something we can work on, instead of flagging articles for deletion and creating big mess. All of the tournaments are connected also with the player's profiles. When someone deleted 2023 International Darts Open, it just disappeared even from the templates, one tournament was missing. Basically Wikipedia provides false information then, and I do not think it is better than having pages for each tournament. If you want to discuss, let's discuss, but please do not just delete pages. As I wrote somewhere else, even the commentators and journalists use Wikipedia darts pages during their work, it is reliable, well written and helpful to many people. I understand that for someone not interested in darts at all it seems pointless, but it is a growing sport, coverage is on the rise and the darts community on Wikipedia takes good care of the pages.--DarthBob (talk) 12:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Haji Zakaria bin Muhammad Amin[edit]

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

Non-notable religious figure. Entire article is based on a single source, and a search finds nothing more. (Would have draftified this, but that has been done before already.) Fails WP:GNG / WP:BIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Islam, and Indonesia. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, single source (which appears to consist in the main of lists of charismatic preachers), nothing else out there: 5 search results. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:50, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is substantial coverage in the main source used, and evidence of other mentions on google books, including in reference to his playing of the gambus (a musical instrument). Much of the material on the page is poorly unsubstantiated and undue (the family stuff in particular), but I think there is enough to maintain a stub. It would be worthwhile to see what someone Indonesian might be able to find in historical sources dating to the Dutch period in some of the various scripts that could well be relevant here. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: the 'main source used' is still just a single source, and as such not enough to establish notability. Likewise 'other mentions', unless they measure up to sigcov. And notability, which is what's on trial here, is required of stubs just as well. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 10:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 12:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: I can't !v Keep because it only has one source. I can't !v Delete because I think there is probably IS RS out there. I this is a good case for Draft; if its not improved with additional sources, it should be deleted. // Timothy :: talk 11:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It looks like a lot of work has been done on this since the 14 March, when it was initially nominated, and it now has a second published book source. And we now have a newspaper death certificate, which is a source of sorts. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:49, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:26, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google books shows other sources talking about him, his music, his son. The second one I added speaks about an Indonesian book profiles him. He seems clearly notable, and I am certain that only translation issues prevent that from being clear to us. WP:NEXIST CT55555(talk) 16:22, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Other than taking a hajj, I don't see what he did that was unusual for his day. Bearian (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Baxendell[edit]

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

Prominent businessman, but the sourcing does not show that they meet WP:GNG. Was sent to draft for improvement, but returned immediately without improvement. Similar to Frederick Stephens (businessman), who will also be nominated for deletion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:51, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 13:17, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:ANYBIO as he has "received a well-known and significant award or honor": received the CBE in 1972 and was knighted in 1981 Plenty of coverage in newspaper archives , for example British Newspaper Archive Piecesofuk (talk) 13:40, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Both a knight and a CBE, both of which have been held again and again to pass WP:ANYBIO #1. Also chairman of one of the biggest oil companies in the world. Ridiculous nomination. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:35, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~I support @Onel5969's nomination as the sourcing doesn't support You've listed two relevant sources in your comment - why not edit the Article to add these?~~ MetricMaster (talk) 09:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep Satisfies WP:ANYBIO as he has "received a well-known and significant award or honour", however article needs additional verifiable cites~~ MetricMaster (talk) 09:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC) This user has made 47 edits to Wikipedia. Their contribution history shows that 38 of these were to AFD discussions. The account exists for votestacking and has been blocked.[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 13:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added additional refs from The Times and New York Times Piecesofuk (talk) 15:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:25, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:ANYBIO, due to the CBE and knighthood. Article has improved since nomination, hopefully that continues. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Star Mississippi 21:55, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the Twilight[edit]

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

Does not appear notable, tagged in March 2023. Nothing found in a BEFORE.

PROD removed with "deprod; probably notable" DonaldD23 talk to me 11:34, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 11:34, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Moving Picture World has a 1 review (quoted on the Imdb p. by the way) on Feb 27, '15 (p. 1388, I think). On another page, the MPC also explains that "Twilight." fifth of the light series written by Marc Jones, has been released in the Mutual program by the Arnerican company for which it was produced by Thomas Ricketts. "Twilight" is more ambitious than its predecessors, "Day- light," "Firelight," "Moonlight""etc. (p. 688) So, there is probably enough to write a short page on this very film.— MY, OH, MY! 15:21, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reliable sources review identified above. For a 1915 film it is hard to find any reviews, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 02:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Star Mississippi 21:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Love Box[edit]

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

Fails NFILM and GNG. Single source in article is to an interview with the director. BEFORE showed nothing with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from Ind RS. // Timothy :: talk 14:15, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have added some extra information and references and links. By all accounts not a very good movie but it did play in cinemas and Tudor Gates and Wilbur Stark are notable people.Britfilm (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Britfilm:. Would it be correct to assume that you think the page should be kept?— MY, OH, MY! 20:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think so Britfilm (talk) 21:40, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Britfilm:.Then you might want to write Keep in bold somewhere in your comment, to make that clear, I presume. — MY, OH, MY! 22:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank youBritfilm (talk) 04:47, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM DonaldD23 talk to me 18:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep page improved with sources since this discussion started. There is also this review for example.The film was released internationally, under the Sp title El Buzon del placer and distributed in Fr as Les Chatouilleuses volcaniques. — MY, OH, MY! 20:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 15:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The improved sourcing is still just a tad below what I’d be comfortable with under NFILM. I see scattered confirmation it was indeed a film and did indeed play in theaters. I see a user-generated review on The Spinning Image. I see a primary source interview with the author. I see a brief mention in a book. I’m just not seeing the sort of independent, in-depth, secondary reliable sourcing material, or a large body of lesser quality sourcing, to demonstrate notability here. Jo7hs2 (talk) 15:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A film doesn't inherit notabiliy if its creators. I checked gBooks, too, and found mentions like "unremarkable British sex film". 20:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suitskvarts (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: Various mentions that this British comedy is typical of its time would tend to place this perhaps unremarkable film on the notable side, I suppose. Just like the comments the film received on ImdB (I know WP does not use it as a source) or its presence as a good example of the 'Art of the Nasty'. The film is also repeatedly mentioned for the originally uncredited presence of Marianne Morris (Vampyres/(Daughters of Darkness)). All in all, with what's now on the page and also given national and international distributions are verifiable, as well as video releases, it seems acceptable without blushing. NB: Alt. titles: (The) Lovebox and The Sex Box (the Internet does not exactly help when you input such words ...)— MY, OH, MY! 14:42, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Since the article was nominated for deletion – 1 1/2 hours after its creation, four more sources from newspapers and one mention as an example of sexploitation in a book have been added. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Both the following sources provide significant coverage, even if the first one barely does so.

Danger of a yawn with 'porn'". Evening Post. 30 September 1972. p. 7.
https://web.archive.org/web/20151011124744/https://www.thespinningimage.co.uk/cultfilms/displaycultfilm.asp?reviewid=4375

The second one isn't exactly the New York Times. But it content that is interesting, could be useful to people, is not promotional and is a net positive to the project. CT55555(talk) 18:22, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:23, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Doyle (announcer)[edit]

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

At the tone, the time will be deletion hour. This weathercaster and announcer who tells the time and temperature fails WP:BIO with no significant media notice. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:25, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Radio, and Television. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:22, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:24, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Durham Inter-Collegiate Christian Union[edit]

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

It's a student religious group at a university. The sources on the page are mostly primary (and have been for a long time), there are mentions in other RS but I'm not seeing much that could be considered substantial to meet the WP:GNG JMWt (talk) 10:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Religion, Christianity, and England. JMWt (talk) 10:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, falls short of criteria for WP:GNG --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 10:56, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Student societies are inherently NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:11, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to Durham University for a paragraph or two where it is relevant Atlantic306 (talk) 04:19, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Atlantic306: i can't see what I would merge in this case. – Fayenatic London 10:50, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the history section slimmed down based on the book sources which may not be independent but are reliable otherwise. Not everything in an article has to be notable and other societies are mentioned briefly in the Durham University article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:07, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that Inter-Varsity Press is a reliable source when it comes to the history of Christianity at Durham University (or any other university). UCCF, who owns the press, has the explicit goal of promoting conservative evangelical Christianity at UK universities (see the sources listed at Universities and Colleges Christian Fellowship#Doctrinal basis), so are not a reliable source when it comes to reporting on their own importance relative to the rest of the university, either historically or today. Including this material in Durham University without citing an independent reliable source would give undue weight to the Christian Union. WJ94 (talk) 09:21, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Observation: If the Durham Inter-Collegiate Christian Union article is to be deleted then Oxford Inter-Collegiate Christian Union and Cambridge Inter-Collegiate Christian Union should be similarly considered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feline Hymnic (talk • contribs)

Possibly but we are talking about this topic right now not all the others. JMWt (talk) 11:26, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The three sources listed in the article are all published by Inter-Varsity Fellowship, which is owned by Universities and Colleges Christian Fellowship – Durham Inter-Collegiate Christian Union is affiliated with UCCF so these sources are not independent. There doesn't seem to be anything worth merging. WJ94 (talk) 12:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford University Archaeological Society[edit]

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

It's a student society at a university. The references on the page are mostly primary or passing mentions. I don't see anything else that seems substantial enough to meet WP:GNG JMWt (talk) 10:01, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Archaeology, and England. JMWt (talk) 10:01, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All of the sources in the article are either passing mentions or primary sources (note that the book cited was published by the society itself). I've looked through Google News/Scholar/Books and can't find anything more substantial - a number of references to the society's involvement in various digs, plus some notable people who were previously associated with the society, but no substantial coverage of the society itself. Thus, fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. WJ94 (talk) 10:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Twenty20 International cricket umpires. ✗plicit 11:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aasif Iqbal[edit]

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

No evidence found of notability, only statistical pages and match reports. Not to be confused with the Pakistani cricket player Asif Iqbal, who is clearly notable, or the UAE cricketer Asif Iqbal (Emirati cricketer). All I could find were passing mentions[28]. Fram (talk) 08:48, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and India. Fram (talk) 08:48, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article should be keep. You can change the title/name of this article. See Rabiul Hoque. Jitendra Khuntia (talk) 09:22, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:14, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Twenty20 International cricket umpires Fails WP:GNG, however there's a suitable redirect here per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:53, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Does not pass WP:NCRIC, not part of Elite Panel, only umpired in a T20I match between associate nations. The mention is only about that he penalised a player, not enough to pass WP:GNG either.RoboCric (talk) 16:34, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above to List of Twenty20 International cricket umpires, where the subject is mentioned. CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:57, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 11:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Minh Thai[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO. References, where not primary, are just passing mentions or describing primarily the 1982 World Rubik's Cube Championship. (If deemed necessary, some content can probably be incorporated there.) Web search does not help here either, and apart from the described kinds of sources returns irrelevant results, such as this Britannica biography on a revolutionary. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 20:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 20:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Sportspeople, and Vietnam. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Gnewspapers has several mentions of him. Most are an AP article from 1982 [29], this in French [30] from Canada. This from a magazine [31]. Oaktree b (talk) 00:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that the third one is essentially a passing mention and not really significant coverage. (It is also already referenced in the article.) 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 10:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

fyi, that French one from Canada is the same AP story. So that's only one source. -- asilvering (talk) 02:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above // Timothy :: talk 00:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 08:47, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Oaktree b's additional sources make this (barely) notable. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I'm not opposed to draftifying this if folks think they can find sourcing as it is close. Star Mississippi 13:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Maze[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG - all sources used are either trivial or from unreliable sites. While the article creator may be a WP:COI editor, the article itself doesn't read like spam; this nomination is in regards to its lack of notability rather than any actual problems with the article content. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~: I was able to find this small news hit at Siliconera but otherwise nothing. Clearly not notable. Nomader (talk) 15:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And just to clarify for anyone coming by, confused why something with so many sources isn't getting a keep !vote from me -- the sources are all considered unreliable or user-submitted stuff according to WP:VG/RS. Nomader (talk) 15:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article now has sources considered reliable by WP:VG/RS that the voter above is referring to. Shacknews, Hardcore Gamer, PCGamesN, Siliconera, Gry OnLine, Jeuxvideo.com. Additionally, this is a French game so there could be offline sources in language French, which I haven't looked for yet. Tagatose (talk) 16:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tagatose: These clearly don't pass WP:RS. Shacknews and Hardcore Gamer literally have the same print and appear to be sourced from a press release, PCGamesN is a key giveaway, Gry OnLine's page here is a Wiki page and not a review from staff, and the Jeuxvideo.com piece is a three sentence blurb. These are trivial mentions, and it's why I didn't cite these before. As I mentioned in my follow-up note, there's a lot of press releases and unreliable sources abounding with this one, but no real commentary on the game itself -- just ads and spammy content. Nomader (talk) 18:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I did find two articles from Metacritic which review the game, but I'm unsure of their reliability. They're from Areajugones (in Spanish) and The Overpowered Noobs. I saw that Overpowered Noobs was unreliable, but the discussion was from 2018, so there's a possibility it may have changed in reliability between those past few years. I'm not sure if AreaJugones has been vetted for reliability in the past, so if anyone wants to check, help yourselves. Also, I took a look at the French version of VG/RS, and I came across a review from CanardPC which is listed as reliable over there. I can't access it however because it's behind a paywall, so if anyone could test it for me, I'd appreciate it. Thanks, PantheonRadiance (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@PantheonRadiance: Reviewing it, I'd still say that The Overpowered Noobs is still unreliable and the consensus from the previous discussion can hold. I'd actually say that Areajugones *is* a reliable source -- it has a full-time editorial team and seems to have an editorial process in one of its About Us pages (although my Spanish isn't great, so would be better for a native speaker to review here). CanardPC also should be listed as reliable here as well based on its editorial policies and staffing page -- I tried various methods to get around the paywall as well but couldn't. I'm striking my !vote above and making it a week keep, because I'm assuming that behind the paywall there's a full review present. This is candidly a great lesson in doing harder searches for foreign-language content for me -- thanks to you and Tagatose for your searches to leave no stone unturned here. Nomader (talk) 19:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@PantheonRadiance: @Nomader: Even factoring in the Areajugones and CanardPC review, I still will not withdraw the AfD. That's only a couple of sources and not at the level of proving WP:GNG, one further source would be nice. Also, can we prove CanardPC is actually reliable? Obviously anyone can tweak a sources list. I can't find a list of editors nor the real name of the writer, so I am highly dubious. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: I don't think that you should withdraw it -- this is still a "Weak Keep" at best from me, partially predicated on the fact that none of us can read that article, frustratingly. I found their "About Us" staff page here (Google Translated: [32]), which lists their publication history, staff, and editors. I'm counting the wimpy Siliconera article that I mentioned above as the "third" article that I'm looking at towards meeting WP:GNG right now. Nomader (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Siliconera is what I would see as WP:MILL coverage. Most likely it's based on some press release and doesn't have the critical view required for WP:SIGCOV. While Canard seems to be a real magazine, I also find it hard to take seriously the reliability of a site that does not list the real names of its writers, this is 2023 and not 2003. If there were a ton of other sources I'd probably say Canard is perfectly admissible, but when notability hangs in the balance, I'm not so sure. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm and Nomader: Understandable that you would keep the AfD up; to be honest I would also recommend doing so too because we still haven't exactly accessed the CanardPC review. Also one thing to consider - I don't exactly remember where I read this, but I found out that apparently some European journalists use pseudonyms as a way to protect their identity. This was a concern I had when I first read pieces from sources listed on the French VG/RS page a few months ago. Although it may seem like something blogs would do, in this regard I don't think writers having pseudonyms should automatically alter the reliability of a news outlet. Not to mention, the writer of the Canard piece has also written for reliable source GameKult as well.

In the meantime, I'm holding off on voting and am going to see if any more French news outlets have written about the game. PantheonRadiance (talk) 00:05, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'm not seeing a consensus yet and I think it is too early to rule this as No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 08:42, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While there is sparse coverage, the only reviews found are either listed as unreliable or have not had any discussions about their reliability. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:59, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. ✗plicit 11:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Tanchanok Good[edit]

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

Actress/model without enough in depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Additionally the criteria of WP:ANYBIO and WP:NACTOR are not met. John B123 (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Thailand. John B123 (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Fashion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with the nominator. Additionally, this article was drafted by an experienced NPP reviewer and it was moved back to mainspace without the notability issues being properly addressed. So, I am now the third editor who considers this article does not belong on main. Given an opportunity to substantiate a claim of notability has been given and not acted upon, I take this to mean notability is not met. MaxnaCarta (talk) 22:34, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator hasn't explained why the currently cited coverage in Manager Online, Khaosod Online and L'Officiel Thailand necessarily fail to establish notability, and, in any case, Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Searching her name turns up plenty of news coverage, including in English in the Bangkok Post's lifestyle pages[33][34][35] and its learning supplement Student Weekly[36]. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:52, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage seems rather routine and not sufficiently in-depth imo MaxnaCarta (talk) 23:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:04, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Eufloria. Sourcing is insufficient. HIstory is here should more eventuate. Star Mississippi 21:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Grainger[edit]

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

I originally PROD'd this article, but found that there had been another PROD that hadn't been marked in the history on the talk page way back in 2014 ([37]). The article was not brought to AfD after that point. My reasoning was:

"Although there are some passing mentions of Grainger inside reviews of Eufloria, none of them make him notable per WP:NBASIC and WP:SINGER. Other articles cited in this page do not make any mention of Grainger at all." Nomader (talk) 22:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Video games. Nomader (talk) 22:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary).

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for intruding, I'm just a random person on the internet looking for more information about Milieu/Coppice Halifax and saw that it is "marked for deletion". I can't judge whether this article passes formal criteria on significance, but I can give a personal account.

I stumbled onto Milieu through Eufloria. Eufloria is an outstanding gem of a game, but part of what makes this game a gem is the soundtrack. It is the first game where I downloaded the soundtrack, because I noticed how good it is.

To me, Brian/Milieu/Coppice Halifax is absolutely outstanding. It was a gateway drug into the "ambient electronic music" genre, and I still am on the quest to find artists that scratch the same itch. Still without much success (even though I found some good music along the way). The psychedelic ambient music he produces at the same time radiates peace and calm. It is minimal enough to stay in the background and set the mood, but interesting and rich once you actually focus and listen and get lost in it.

Luckily, even having no other artists I'd put on the same level in that Genre, it feels not so bad, as he produces so much music and has essentially an own musical universe.

On some ocassions I had friends over and turned on Mileu in the background, and they noticed, ask who that is, and absolutely loved it, and thanked me for introducing them to the music later.

If it was up to me, instead of deleting the article, I'd rather extend it with "similar artists", and would wish him to get all the visibility and recognition, and more people to stumble onto this hidden gem.

If this article is deleted, he will probably vanish into a closed-off bubble of musical niche genre forums. As Eufloria can not seed (pun intended) new awareness, being half-forgotten itself in the sea of never ending new games, remaining a memory of those who had the luck of experiencing this game at a point in their life and getting hooked on the music like I did, it would be a huge loss if this artist does not get more visibility and attention, which the wiki Page can provide by catching random lurkers who maybe googled "ambient music someartist" or something similar.

So please keep it :) Wikipedia has articles on many niche genres and artists. Why delete this one? I think for this specific genre, he is one of the giants. Not everyone leaves a mark on the world by generating massive media coverage to prove their worthiness.

I've seen much more questionable and in fact some shady people having articles or stubs on Wikipedia, probably written by themselves, and nobody asking to remove them. In comparison, removing Milieu would be just not fair, if not insulting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.63.153.81 (talk) 22:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! The reason that the article is being proposed for deletion is that subjects of Wikipedia articles must be notable enough to have an article, following our policy (that I just linked to earlier in the sentence here). They must meet at a minimum the general notability guideline or in this case, our notability standards for musicians. Brian has admittedly done some really terrific work that I've discovered after finding this article, and that I enjoy listening too -- but unfortunately, there's just not really any coverage of *him* by himself. For Wikipedia's case, he doesn't need "massive media", but even one or two articles would be helpful to argue to keep this page. Those don't exist, and so I've !voted to delete the article through my nomination. Nomader (talk) 04:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that Eufloria game reviews praising the soundtrack do not count, to pass according to Nr. 10 on the list ("performed for a notable media work")? Because the soundtrack is mentioned in basically every review, and Eufloria got a lot of coverage.

Then there are the bandcamp pages: [coppice halifax](https://coppicehalifax.bandcamp.com/) [milieu](https://milieumusic.bandcamp.com/)

Those contain links to other websites and accounts.

Here is another short bio summary: https://www.discogs.com/de/artist/426224-Brian-Grainger

Here is an actual interview: https://higherplainmusic.com/2011/10/17/whispers-of-the-plains-interview-with-eufloria-composer-brian-grainger/

Here some reviews not related to eufloria:

https://igloomag.com/reviews/coppice-halifax-multi-review-milieu-music
https://igloomag.com/reviews/milieu-cd-reviews-infraction-u-cover

Now this does not count as proper "source", but to argue he's not unknown - a few mentions in music subreddits:

https://www.reddit.com/r/electronicmusic/comments/rbnwq9/comment/hnphqhw
https://www.reddit.com/r/ambientmusic/comments/1237oqq/comment/jdwqxfs
https://www.reddit.com/r/aphextwin/comments/u51xja/comment/i50d4w6
https://www.reddit.com/r/electronicmusic/comments/sdz68v/are_there_artists_similar_to_boards_of_canada/ (multiple mentions)

Ok I guess that is all I can do to argue for keeping it. Do of it what you think is right :-) 62.144.244.110 (talk) 17:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I actually don't see what I consider sufficient support for deleting or for keeping this article right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:03, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do enjoy more articles about video game industry people than fewer, but it doesn't seem like there's too much here to show that he is a notable video game person. Redirect to Eufloria. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 03:02, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @62.144.244.110: Ugh, I hate this so much because you've clearly gone above and beyond to pull sources here. The Discogs bio is unreliable per WP:RSDISCOGS (anyone can add information to the site). The Higher Plain Music interview is a great read, but primary sources (like interviews) don't contribute to notability (in Wikipedia's eyes). The bandcamp pages are a bit more up in the air per the reliable sources noticeboard, but they seem to be user-generated and aren't independent coverage. The Igloo Magazine coverage could be something to help, but it's still not anything about, well, Brian himself. Lastly, the Reddit notes are unreliable per WP:RSREDDIT

I just wanted to say, thanks for all of your effort in putting these together, but at least from my eyes (and the rest of the community may feel otherwise), it doesn't meet the mark here. Nomader (talk) 21:46, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Eufloria. No prejudice for the article being recreated if notability can be found, but right now it does not seem that way at all, and it seems he is largely known in the public eye for making the soundtrack of that video game. The article was also made by a WP:SPA making me suspect it is simply WP:PROMO with no regard paid for notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 18:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Salim Mawla Abi Hudhayfa[edit]

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

This page appears to be solely sourced to religious websites, making its contents wholly unverifiable and functionally useless from the perspective of Wikipedia's content standards. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Religion, and Islam. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe this nomination is flawed. We have many articles about Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran and Orthodox bishops which are sourced entirely to sources related to their respective denominations. There are a few companions of the prophet about whom very little is known today, but most have been discussed constantly in Islamic scholarship for more than 1400 years because of their critical role in the transmission of Hadith. In any case there are sufficient sources in English for this to be a GNG pass (Google book search) without even looking in Arabic or other languages. Mccapra (talk) 07:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Google books shows two footnotes. Scholar hints at a few mentions, but the relevant passages are not apparent. There is nothing to currently indicate the presence of any non-trivial mentions of the subject in reliable sources. The page is just as poorly supported in its Arabic version. The other premise is also invalid. This individual did not play a major role in any tradition, because he ostensibly died in the Battle of Yamama, and thus was prevented from ever passing on whatever material he might have recollected. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:11, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

simply false. I find multiple sources (not including the ones I enumerate below) citing him as the source of Hadith. You’re just making it up. Mccapra (talk) 05:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to Battle of Yamama. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it’s not true that the subject appears only in a couple of footnotes in a google book search. In English I get multiple pieces of coverage, including 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, with other instances too. From this we learn that the subject, on account of his exceptional knowledge of the Quran, led the community in prayer in Medina before Muhammad himself arrived, and that the caliph Omar stated that, had he lived, he would have made him his successor. Mccapra (talk) 04:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

in Arabic, setting aside explicitly religious sites and only looking for substantive coverage in general sources that editors can auto translate, coverage includes two extensive profiles in daily news sources, 6 and 7, and this from wikisource 8. Mccapra (talk) 05:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While some Arabic news sources are reasonably sound sources for local news, and Youm 7 is generally speaking a respected publication, I don't think Arabic news sources are realistically reliable sources for Islamic biographies, and that Wikisource text is a primary source, so not super useful in of itself without supporting coverage in reliable, secondary sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:30, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mccapra, You may be right in your overall assessment, but you should get rid of the first book that you list above. It lists Lulu, a well known self-publishing outfit, as its publisher. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thank you I didn’t spot that. Mccapra (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Mccapra has shown that there are a number of sources. Furius (talk) 01:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It would be interesting to see the nominator respond to the newly identified sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:59, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 18:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GAI (musician)[edit]

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

Based on the lack of references and the bizarre content, ~~I think this may be a hoax~~. Walt Yoder (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and China. Walt Yoder (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further examination, this may just be an extremely bad translation of the zhwiki article. Walt Yoder (talk) 03:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see lots of sources cited at zh:GAI and lots more at the Baidu Baike article. The article certainly needs some copyediting but I think there's clearly enough to meet GNG. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 05:15, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I browsed through the sources at the China Wikipedia article (zh:GAI) and several appear to be social media junk but others appear to be robust entertainment news sites. I recommend finding someone who is familiar with both the language and the sources in order to find if they are reliable and significant. If so, then clean up this article dramatically. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:47, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment after taking another look, this definitely isn't a hoax in the sense of WP:HOAX. I'm not sure if his appearance on two Chinese reality TV programs as a musician meets WP:NACTOR or not. I have reduced the article in Special:Diff/1147461751. Walt Yoder (talk) 03:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this article is very imperfect. The information and references are very lacking. Not enough to give a clear understanding of the term.Roci xu (talk) 07:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThis is an article that lacks reliable sources, the article is mostly from unreliable entertainment news and it should be removed. And I don't think it's appropriate to use a stage name as the title of a wiki entry.--Lqy328 (talk) 07:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this article lacks too much personal information and work information of the singer. And the sentences in the existing introduction are not rigorous enough, which is very easy to cause misunderstanding. Modifications are suggested.Hhhh2 (talk) 07:50, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this article is oversimplified and the references cited are untrustworthy. It needs to add a lot of valuable content and look for reliable sources of reference sources.Ddccxl (talk) 08:06, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Roci xu, Lqy328, Hhhh2, and Ddccxl: I agree that the article needs more information and more sources. Would you be interested in improving it? The issues you've mentioned don't justify deletion, because the topic is clearly notable, but it would be great if we can improve the article's quality. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Lots of comments (and thanks for your investigation) but we need more opinions of what to do with this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:57, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can't find any sourcing, but if the Chinese language sources are on reliable websites as explained, I'd keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but improve. I was one of the commenters above but we do indeed need some real votes. In my view, GAI appears to be a known media personality in China, and some editors have already removed social media junk from the article. We can keep it for now as a stub, but someone should recruit editors who know about Chinese media and can translate any reliable sources from the ZH Wikipedia article. Editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject China could be called upon to help. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:45, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Naina Ki Sharafat[edit]

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

No in-depth coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG, sources are primary, unreliable, gossips and promotional blogposts articles. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 05:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 05:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to meet WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:51, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Also notability seems to be lacking, and sources are mainly promotional in nature. CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:25, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bay Emaan Mohabbat[edit]

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

No in-depth coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG, sources are primary, unreliable, and TV listing articles. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 05:29, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 05:29, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - another of these poorly sourced articles, where there is not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to pass WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:51, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Referencing is fine for an average Pakistani drama because it's less likely in Pakistan that other media houses will cover a drama if it is not a hit serial. Muneebll (talk) 20:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Show is not notable enough for a standalone article, and there are clearly not enough reliable sources to meet GNG. CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:49, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:28, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Streets Ahead Rwanda[edit]

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

My WP:BEFORE search did not find the significant coverage in independent reliable sources that would be needed for this charity to meet WP:NORG. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Rwanda. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. It's a small charity registered with the UK charity commission on which an internet search does not turn up any significant coverage in independent sources. Hmee2 (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted by WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it seems to be a small charity as explained, I can't find much other than registration information. Oaktree b (talk) 15:42, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Khoury[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 02:41, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:22, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:22, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:22, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:20, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT - nothing has changed since last AFD. Giant Snowman 08:32, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt, per GiantSnowman. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:56, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of any evidence of notability. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:51, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ata Inia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ata Inia (2nd nomination)

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Side not, a few of the so called references state that he is a professional footballer, which is not the case and as such are unreliable.Simione001 (talk) 02:22, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:22, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:22, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:22, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:17, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:19, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - First of all, this article has been nominated for deletion before and the article was kept. Secondly, the many various sources are clearly reliable and he is clearly a professional footballer (especially since he is a foreigner playing in Thailand). Young, clearly significant figure in Tongan football who has received a lot of coverage (maybe the most for a Tongan player) with ongoing career abroad. He is the first and only pro Tongan footballer ever to play abroad as well. Lastly, he clearly meets WP:SPORTSBASIC. On top of that, besides the many sources already in the article, there are definitely Thai and Khmer sources about him not in the article as well. User has nominated 10 articles for deletion in a day (some are proposed for deletion, but for this user that's basically the same as being nominated for deletion because they will always end up nominating it for deletion no matter what users say/do). Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since it was closed as 'no consensus to delete', it's considered acceptable for this to be reopened again for a 2nd AfD. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly passes GNG, with multiple independent sources. And that's all that needs to be said. if you don't think they're important enough as a footballer, then feel free to remove them from WP:FOOTBALL.--IdiotSavant (talk) 00:00, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - previous AFD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AJ Inia. Giant Snowman 08:34, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nothing has changed since last AFD. Giant Snowman 08:34, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-for reasons already listed.--Gri3720 (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. The sources in the article are routine transfer news, primary sources or a Q&A interviews. Alvaldi (talk) 10:18, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the sources are not routine transfer news, primary sources or a Q&A interviews and contain background info on him and other editors and I disagree with your opinion that the many sources do not provide IRS SIGCOV, as shown in the keep votes above. It's fine, we can agree to disagree. This article has been nominated for deletion before and the article was kept. Young, clearly significant figure in Tongan football who has received a lot of coverage (maybe the most ever for a Tongan player) with ongoing career abroad. He is the first and only pro Tongan footballer ever to play abroad as well. Lastly, he clearly meets WP:SPORTSBASIC. On top of that, besides the many sources already in the article, there are definitely Thai and Khmer sources about him not in the article as well. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Das osmnezz Here is a list of sources, kindly point me to the significant ones. [38] has a few lines of prose but then again it seems to use his Linkedin page as a source so independence and reliability is highly questionable. (Inia started playing for Melbourne Knights FC in February 2018, according to his LinkedIn profile.) [39] is a trivial mention, [40] mentions him once in a list of players, [41] is a routine match report, [42] is a blog, [43] is a routine transfer story that mostly consists of quotes from his coach, [44] trivially mentions him once, [45] is a routine match report, [46] is a list of game results, [47] is a picture on Facebook, Clearance Records_1.pdf is a list of players who received clearance for the 2022 season by Football Victoria, [48] another players list from Football Victora, this time of goalscorers, [49] is a Q&A interview with very little prose, [50] is a report on an interview on an apparent blogsite run by a single individual. This source may or may not be a significant one, however it is locked beyond a paywall. The WP:BURDEN of proof in that matter, and any claimes that WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES, lies with the ones who want to claim it is significant. Alvaldi (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note to editors: This editor is just spamming Google refs, as the comment "This source may or may not be a significant one, however it is locked beyond a paywall." shows. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"' // Timothy :: talk 22:28, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, Fails GNG and BIO. BEFORE showed promos, database records, nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Article refs are typical of those above, as Alvaldi shows they are just spam refs, there is nothing that meets IS RS SIGCOV. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 22:17, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -

Many of the sources are clearly not promos or database records and contain background info on him and other editors and I disagree with your opinion that the many sources do not provide IRS SIGCOV, as shown in the keep votes above. Also, Wikipedia is supposed to be a source of knowledge, and this article is a "yes" to Wikipedia:The one question. Inia is clearly a topic of interest, and has received unprecedented coverage for any Tongan footballer ever, being the first professional Tongan footballer and first to play abroad. He is the topic of many other sources, which combined, make for a decent sized article, and the page has been expanded since it was nominated for deletion the first time (even then, the page was kept). As one user stated in another deletion discussion, "expansion... renders the above WP:WIKILAWYERING a moot point". As the closer of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Okilani Tinilau (2nd nomination) stated, which can also apply to here, "there is certainly no question... the subject of this article is not... one of the leading athletes in the history of his country. As a project, we must have some sensitivity to the fact that there will be subjects from minority groups in smaller countries for whom sources in English will be sparse or less accessible than for subjects in large English-speaking countries". Lastly, the closer should keep in mind the numerous keep votes in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AJ Inia which vastly outnumbered the delete ones, the only delete vote then came from Alvadi, who voted delete here again as well). Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 04:41, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clearly passes GNG with significant coverage.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:39, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:28, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MaxStat[edit]

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

Only one source, and it does not constitute significant coverage. Can't find any reliable sources that cover this. PopoDameron ⁠talk 01:08, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mathematics and Software. PopoDameron ⁠talk 01:08, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Widely used statistical analysis software package, with a large number of Google Scholar citations (although many just say MaxStat was used on the data). I have added two substantive scholarly treatments, one of which addresses functionality and the other of which explains its use. I also improved the style and added an infobox. Oblivy (talk) 06:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One of the sources you added was written by the author of this software, so that of course does not prove much when it comes to notability. The other is a general overview and comparison of a number of different statistical packages and such. I don't see this showing notability on its own, especially looking at the conference it was published in. Does not seem credible at all. PopoDameron ⁠talk 06:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which one was written by the author? I believe the author is Oliver Wurl; AFAIK neither article is associated with him. Oblivy (talk) 06:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to this, the author is Torsten Hothorn. Do you have any source that says otherwise? Also, by the way, is the package's website a 403 page for you too? PopoDameron ⁠talk 06:33, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is. Archive.org shows it was up as of late 2022, now it pings but doesn't serve up a page. Oblivy (talk) 06:36, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So maybe the notable one isn't the one that the page is based on? The one on Github is the piece of software is was thinking of, although the one from Germany is the one that's on all the software hype sites. Oblivy (talk) 06:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see it on GitHub.[51] Strange, as Wurl is listed as the software developer elsewhere. Maybe two different software packages? Oblivy (talk) 06:35, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would certainly complicate things, but I was honestly beginning to suspect it too. PopoDameron ⁠talk 06:39, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete Website is nonresponsive, and there isn't enough out there on the software which is the subject of the article to build more content/cites off of.Oblivy (talk) 06:45, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:44, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Website yields a 403, lacking in sources with little other information to be found, and much of the article reads like a sales pitch. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 07:47, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The OP may have done a poor job of articulating their rationale, but procedural arguments to keep are always going to be weak when other editors have put forward substantive rationales. I don't see anyone making an argument to keep on the merits. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:16, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Carrone[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:CRIME. The article only lists two sources, both of which are books. I've never read these books and don't know how much they discuss Carrone, but it's evident from the titles that neither one is about him. I could not find any additional sources. Based on this, I don't believe he meets notability requirements. Baronet13 (talk) 20:36, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:51, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak procedural keep. "I've never read these books and don't know how much they discuss Carrone" describes the problem: We really do need to look at sources to assess their quality and depth. We can't just assume books are poor sources without reading them. Books are big things; a book might not be entirely dedicated to Carrone, but nevertheless contain an in-depth discussion of his life, and it's our job to check that before we delete an article. If there had been a third book, this would have been a strong procedural keep, as I'm biased towards three good sources for an article. Elemimele (talk) 12:04, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it is nigh-on impossible to judge whether a book has significant coverage of a topic without reading it, but it is possible to judge reliability. These two Google Books results don't scream "reliable" to me. They look like "true crime" dramas written in the breathless style so beloved by that genre. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PERP and provides no other claims of any notability. That is good enough for me. Rogermx (talk) 13:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Procedural close: without prejudice on future AfD: “I've never read these books and don't know how much they discuss Carrone” The nom has failed to show any valid reason for AFD or do a BEFORE or explore ATD. // Timothy :: talk 22:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that I couldn't find any evidence this guy even exists outside of allegedly being discussed in these two books (even that much can't be proven), which leads me to believe he could be a composite character, a pseudonym or maybe a hoax. It's strange that there don't seem to be any news reports about an allegedly notorious gangster. Baronet13 (talk) 06:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep "I've never read these books and don't know how much they discuss Carrone" isn't a good reason to raise AfD IMHO. As per @Rogermx: if WP:PERP is reason enough, it should have been the AfD~~ MetricMaster (talk) 08:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC) This user has made 47 edits to Wikipedia. Their contribution history shows that 38 of these were to AFD discussions. The account exists for votestacking and has been blocked.[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:29, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have a simple question for @TimothyBlue:, @MetricMaster:, @MElemimele: and anybody else who wants to keep this article: can you find any evidence that Frank Carrone actually exists? Baronet13 (talk) 18:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The relevant policy guidelines that would determine the appropriate outcome (i.e. keeping versus deletion) in this case are WP:CRIME and WP:PERP. The issue at hand is whether the coverage that exists on the subject passes the WP:SIGCOV threshold in a manner that would satisfy CRIME and NPERP. If the nature of coverage is sufficient to demonstrate notability under these guidelines, there will be a case for keeping. The case for deletion would require that the sources fail to amount to significant coverage, thus failing to demonstrate notability. Shawn Teller (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The reliability of the sources has to be taken into consideration as well as the amount of coverage in them. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that one of the two cited sources is a book written by an associate of Frank Carrone (assuming Carrone actually exists, which nobody has been able to verify yet) and is, therefore, not independent of him. That means there is, at most, one established example of coverage in independent secondary sources. Whether or not this is WP:SIGCOV is actually irrelevant, as multiple independent sources are required for WP:GNG. Baronet13 (talk) 23:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh (talk) 06:31, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article's a mess, those two book sources aren't referenced within the article - and the first of them is actually titled The Life and Crimes of a Mobster, not a gangster. Nominator could have done better than leading with 'I didn't read no sources' but makes a good point about association - there's also this out there, derived from WP, which just adds citogenesis to the reasons to delete this unsourced, unverified - and virtually unverifiable - article. Outside of these two 'sources', WP:BEFORE throws up nothing - which doesn't really scream 'notorious gangster' to me... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:37, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have done a thorough Google search, found nothing of value, and can only conclude that this article is likely a hoax. This supposed Manhattan mobster does not appear in the archives of the New York Times although an enthusiastic Yankees fan named Lenore Carrone is mentioned once. If all the colorful anecdotes were even half true, it should be relatively easy to find coverage in reliable sources. If anybody finds actual coverage in actual reliable sources, I will be happy to reconsider. Cullen328 (talk) 08:22, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Surprisingly not a hoax. I've found a copy of Goombata on the Internet Archive; pp. 83–86, 196. This 1992 book supports the existence of Carrone (sofar as the book is itself not a hoax). Frank "Buzzy" Carrone was a person, who had his right eye gouged out, worked under/for(?) Carmine Fatico, was arrested in Massachusetts, and died in jail. Interesting stuff. I was also able to find Joe Doggs, also on the Internet Archive, but unlike Goombata doesn't have an index and I'm not interested in reading the book to find where Carrone is mentioned. These two just aren't indexed in Google, making anything hard af to verify. Who knows how many impossible-to-search sources exist because no one cares enough for them. SWinxy (talk) 02:17, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have to wonder if "Frank Carrone" could be a pseudonym, since there appears to be no evidence outside of this book that he exists. In any case, three pages about in one book him isn't enough to make him notable. Baronet13 (talk) 17:42, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:40, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gibelacher[edit]

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

I cannot find references to the place. It is certainly not a town; not even a listed hamlet. On Google Maps it is only a dot. It has no article on German-language Wikipedia. I am not even sure it is a named natural feature. Fails WP:NGEO Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 01:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 01:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. No sources to be found, and can't even be located on a map. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 07:11, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While multiple editors felt NOTINHERITED applied, consensus was reached that this article meets the GNG. If desired, merge/redirect discussions may continue at the talk page. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:20, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Jorgensen[edit]

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

Draft that avoided the AFC Review process. Topic is NN via WP:1E and WP:INHERIT. UtherSRG (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Entertainment, Illinois, and New Mexico. UtherSRG (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have auto patrol rights. To frame this as "avoiding" AFC seems to suggest a misunderstanding of process. CT55555(talk) 16:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as article creator) the suggestion that is is notable for one event is easily disproven, he is clearly notable for multiple events, that fall neatly into two groups of events. The first one is his circus work in the 1960s which was making news for three years. The second is his family connections, which Brad Stone (journalist) wrote about (significant coverage) for his book The Everything Store. That created notability in 2012 when Stone identified him and made news in 2013 and 2014, and as recently as 2021. WP:NOT1E explains clearly how 1E does not apply here, but the main thing is that he made news over various years, for more than one event. Even by 1963, he was noted in news for three (similar, but distinct) events. The one event thing would require him to be a low profile individual. People doing news interviews on national channels are not low profile. See WP:LOWKEY.

The link to WP:NOTINHERITED is interesting, because it's part of an essay called Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. It's OK to cite essays here (I did already) but it's only relevant to cite if I someone claimed his notability was inherited. I quote Inherent notability is the idea that something qualifies for an article merely because it exists, even if zero independent reliable sources have ever taken notice of the subject.. That is not the case here, nobody made such a claim, he meets WP:GNG which is the real measure of notability. He does so due to the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources:

Three news items 1961 to 1963.
2013 news: https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2013/10/10/bezos-amazon-biological-father/2959633/
Significant coverage in the book The Everything Store
2018 news: https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-met-amazon-bezos-dad-chicago-inc-20180220-story.html
2014 news: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LP80jo1_UgU&ab_channel=InsideEdition (note based on an interview, note date of 2019 when it went online, but was broadcast 2014) CT55555(talk) 16:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INHERIT and the negative side of WP:LOWKEY. Any argument that he did not inherit his notability is unconvincing, because why would anyone talk about him otherwise? His own life is overwhelmingly average and non-notable despite being in a book about his famous relative. The article tries to spruce things up with tidbits like his award from a local hobby club and a broken jaw in 1972, and those easily fail the "significant" language at WP:SIGCOV despite appearing in newspapers. I also have a local club award and a broken bone in my past but neither is newsworthy or encyclopedic. An article about a regular guy's regular life adds no value to Wikipedia, and it violates policy too. The previous redirect of his name to the Jeff Bezos article could be restored as well. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:28, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Everything Store. While I have no issue with CT55555's creation of this article or any others without going through AfC, I don't think Jorgensen is independently notable Star Mississippi 16:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why that destination? Before moving the draft, the location was occupied with a redirect to Jeff Bezos. Would that suffice? - UtherSRG (talk) 16:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would be fine too. To me it seemed more natural since their connection was identified in tandem with the book's research, and per CT's note above that he's covered therein, but I don't feel strongly. Star Mississippi 16:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning keep. I don't think the information here works well shoe-horned into either the Jeff Bezos article, or the book (he's not really the subject of either), and yet he seems to me to be the sort of person that a random member of the public might well be interested in, especially given his connection with Bezos. No, notability is not inherited. But if other sources write about someone's connection because they find it interesting (e.g. that Jeff Bezos' father was a unicyclist) then it becomes notable in our terms because of the sourcing (basically, good sources trump almost everything else here). No, just at the human level of thinking what our readers want, I think they'd want this article, and since it's backed up by references, I think it's okay to keep. Elemimele (talk) 20:17, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. CT55555(talk) 23:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to WP:GNG. WP:INHERIT has nothing to do with article content, it is not a valid rationale on its own. Read the essay it says "This section is not a content guideline or policy." INHERIT is "an argument to avoid during deletion discussions" ie. "Keep because he is the father of Jeff Bezos", would be INHERIT argument to avoid. Nobody is making that argument. Sources and content are not regulated by inheritance, if so please show me where. -- GreenC 02:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scroll down the WP:INHERIT essay some more and you will see "notability is usually neither inherited nor inherent". Therefore it can be argued here that Mr. Jorgensen is non-notable because any media interest in his story is inherited from his famous relative. An essay can be cited in a discussion like this when it is a part of a larger reasoning process, or else the essay wouldn't be here in the first place. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's true that notability is not inherently inherited, that's why the essay exists, one can't simply say "Keep because father of a famous son", we should avoid that argument. However the essay does not say to avoid sources ie. core policies such as RS and V. If a source considers someone notable for coverage, that is what notability is. The essay says "Notability requires verifiable evidence". We got that. -- GreenC 14:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenC is exactly correct. Nobody made the argument that he is inherently notable, instead the his notability stems from WP:GNG pass. As per the essay anyway: Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG. CT55555(talk) 15:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the WP:SIGCOV. The nominator has used an essay as a rationale for deletion. Notability is established by policies and guidelines. Lightburst (talk) 03:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to either Jeff Bezos#Early life or The Everything Store. Being a circus performer does not automatically confer notability (unless you're a big star, and that doesn't appear to be the case here), and his relationship to Bezos falls under INHERIT. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a bit from this article to Bezos's. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to pass GNG, and the AfC is invalid rationale for deletion. Seacactus 13 (talk) 19:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Aside from events related to Jeff Bezos, the topic doesn't meet WP:ANYBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone claimed it meets WP:ANYBIO. I do assert that it meets WP:GNG. CT55555(talk) 01:29, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If I understand the problem here correctly, the question is if we would keep the article even if he was not the father of Jeff Bezos. In my opinion, the answer is yes. According to the article, Ted Jorgensen was the president of the first club in the world which offered unicycle hockey as a new sport. I think that's notable. RolfSander (talk) 08:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:INHERITORG, being president of a (marginally) notable unicycle hockey club would not give Jorgensen notability. Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is being claimed on two fronts here:

Unicylcing - Sources about Jorgensen's "unicycling career" are from the same small local newspaper from the early 60s, are ~3 paragraphs long, focus on the club (not Jorgensen), and only mention Jorgensen as one name in a list or in passing. A few other bits of information (like unsuccessfully auditioning for a TV show) come from books about Bezos which I will go into next. This does not pass GNG as we would not have articles about any of the other club members named in these sources solely on the strength of these small newspaper clippings. Information like the club being the "world's first unicycle hockey club" comes from a source that doesn't even mention Jorgensen.
Bezos' dad - Sources solely focussing on Bezos or Jorgensen's relationship to Bezos is an example of WP:BIO1E and does not demonstrate general notability. If we set our notability requirements to value these kind of sources, the parents of any notable person that has had a book-length biography written about them would meet GNG.

Both of these together do not equal much that cannot be summarised in a sentence or two in Jeff Bezos. Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just giving some clarity for those who are claiming SIGCOV based on the unicycling coverage. Here are the sources used and the only sentences in which they mention Jorgensen (emphasis mine of course):

https://thehockeynews.com/news/the-weird-wild-and-wacky-world-of-unicycle-hockey - does not mention Jorgensen at all.
Albuquerque Tribune, March 26, 1959 Page 41 - Perry Pinkerton is president, Ted Jorgensen vice president, Margaret Bradley secretary, and Jimmy Cellic treasurer.
Albuquerque Tribune. 25 March 1961. p. 8 - Awards will be presented to Rachel Westerman, most creative entry; Tony Stanphill, anniversary race winner; Ted Jorgensen, most versatile rider.
Albuquerque Tribune. 27 March 1962. p. 20 - Ted Jorgensen will be elected as president; Terry Bradley as vice president; Margaret Bradley as secretary, and Perry Pinkerton as treasurer.
Albuquerque Tribune. 15 February 1963 - Team members include Terry Williams, Rachel Westerman, Linda Robey, Tommy Ratcliff, Susan Bradley, Perry Pinkerton, Margaret Bradley and Ted Jorgensen.

Are we seriously going to treat that this as SIGCOV? Is this really encyclopedic information? If so, surely we should have articles for Margaret Bradley (unicyclist) and Perry Pinkerton. Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:57, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are strong policy based arguments for keeping the article, and there are also strong policy based arguments for deletion. Ultimately what it will come down to, and what consensus needs to be reached on, is whether or not the subject meets WP:NOTABILITY criteria. Some things to take into account include both the amount and range of coverage the subject receives by WP:RS. The quality of sources is also important, with only reliable secondary sources providing WP:SIGCOV eligible to demonstrate WP:NOTABILITY. Demonstrating that the subject either does or does not satisfy WP:GNG will also be of tantamount importance as the discussion turns towards consensus. Essentially, demonstration of notability will support keeping the article, whereas failing to demonstrate notability should result in deletion. Discussion needs to focus on whether or not the subject satisfies notability and WP:SIGCOV criteria, as sufficient SIGCOV would effectively demonstrate notability - which, if the case, would not warrant deletion insert the relevant policies. On the other hand, if it is decided that existing subject coverage is WP:ROUTINE and fails SIGCOV, there would certainly be a strong case for deletion. Therefore, assessing subject notability and coming to an agreement on the quality of sources will be of utmost importance in arriving at a policy-based consensus in regards to the outcome of this discussion. While I currently see a consensus developing, the delete and keep arguments have basis in policy and should be taken into account by the closer. The veracity of the existing sources needs careful scrutiny. Coverage amounting to WP:TRIVIAL or WP:ROUTINE would fall short of WP:SIGCOV and be grounds for deletion. Keeping would require that SIGCOV is established to demonstrate notability according to WP:GNG among other relevant guidelines. Discussion needs to focus on whether or not the subject satisfies notability and WP:SIGCOV criteria, as sufficient SIGCOV would effectively demonstrate notability - which, if the case, would not warrant deletion insert the relevant policies. On the other hand, if it is decided that existing subject coverage is WP:ROUTINE and fails SIGCOV, there would certainly be a strong case for deletion. Shawn Teller (hy/hym) (talk) 14:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE – Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:49, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be notable with sigcov in several different places over the period of several years. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and BIO. None of the sources show IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. NOTINHERITED. // Timothy :: talk 21:01, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not even the numerous pages discussing him in The Everything Store? BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That all seems directly connected to Bezos, the relatives of notable people have to have independent notability. I could see a short mention in Bezos article, but I don't see sources for a stand alone article. // Timothy :: talk 21:26, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are writing as if there is some guideline that demands people have notability unaffiliated with famous relatives. The only "independence" required is in the normal sense = not from sources they are involved in. WP:NOTINHERITED is just an essay with a list of arguments to avoid at AFD, ironically. And even WP:NOTINHERITED opines that people can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG. CT55555(talk) 21:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has WP:SIGCOV and is notable for more than one thing.KatoKungLee (talk) 00:41, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Many good articles have been deleted because of bias judgements. With source above, it qualify WP:GNG that should be the center focus not unrealistic comments.Robin499 (talk) 19:40, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:29, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: (1) as per convincing argument by Elemimele, and (2) sufficient sources to build an article, pass WP:GNG and thus meeting WP:INHERIT Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG. ResonantDis_tortion 16:34, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Whether or not to move to a new title can be handled editorially. Star Mississippi 21:46, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Newpoint Schools[edit]

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

No citations & original editor is now blocked on Wiki Mr.EugeneKrab$ (talk) 21:02, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:15, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:15, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:15, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no valid reason for deletion cited in nomination. School districts notability is determined per WP:GEOLAND. Are you contesting the existence of this school district? It can easily be improved to show notability and that's what AFD determines. It is in no way based on the current state of the article. 69.92.163.38 (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article could perhaps be moved to "Newpoint Education Partners" and explain the history of the company as they specialize in charter schools; WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP applies here, but I see no harm with the AfD as it's not obvious what Newpoint Schools is until reading a bit. An interesting fate for the "company" as the CEO was charged with racketeering and organized fraud in 2017. [52]:

From 2007 to 2016, Newpoint managed 15 public charter schools in Escambia, Bay, Duval, Hillsborough, Pinellas and Broward counties. All told, the schools received more than $57 million in public funds from the state of Florida and various school districts.

It seems various issues have popped up for the schools [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] that information could be presented and suffice GNG. – The Grid (talk) 16:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for digging. My keep vote above stands, but with your justification. I should know better than to assume. Nominator is relatively new, and I hope he's picked up on the ideas contained in WP:BEFORE. 69.92.163.38 (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @The Grid: for doing that research. With that information, the page could be benefitted. Also, thanks for sharing WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, as I was not aware of these guidelines. As for 69.92.163.38, I reviewed WP:GEOLAND and personally don't believe it is applicable here, or, at least, not obviously so. Only began AFD discussion because the page as it currently exists would not have been accepted by AFC (was created in 2014). Go ahead and keep, but please improve the page then. Mr.EugeneKrab$ (talk) 18:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you look above, I already said that my argument is invalid as this isn't a school district. However, for a school district my argument is valid as school districts are quasigovernmental administrative units with fixed geographic boundries, taxing authority and elected officials. A further thing you're probably not aware of is at one point in Wikipedia's history, all secondary schools were considered notable. A third thing is Wikipedia rules and guidelines are proscriptive not restrictive. In other words, what happens at AfD is not necessarily dictated by the rules; rather the rules are supposed to be determined by what happens at AfD. Also, passing AfC is not a valid argument at AfD. Just FYI. Happy editing! 69.92.163.38 (talk) 23:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is this is not a school district. Newpoint is a chain of charter schools spanning counties. This is why I stated above that this AfD could have been done in error from anyone. We have discussion of it, it's all good, and we can get past this. – The Grid (talk) 16:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:18, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and possibly move to Newpoint Education Partners per The Grid above. I did a newspapers.com search and easily found a plethora of coverage (e.g. [58], an above-the-fold front page story in the Tampa Bay Times). The company isn't called "Newpoint Schools" (most articles call them "Newpoint schools" after identifying the owner) so I think a move could be appropriate here. Easily passes WP:GNG, and a good reminder that AfD is not clean up. The article is currently in a sorry state, but it should be tagged instead of being deleted. Nomader (talk) 03:53, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

India at the 2023 IBA Women's World Boxing Championships[edit]

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

We normally do not create nations at event pages for singular sporting events. They are reserved for multi-sports events. A redirect could also work here (to 2023 IBA Women's World Boxing Championships) Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:21, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Boxing and India. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:21, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See India at the 2022 World Athletics Championships WikiEdits2003 (talk) 06:27, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect Those article are there for multi-sport events as the nominator says. This is just too detailed. Kante4 (talk) 14:19, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:17, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There aren't many convincing "keep" arguments: "YouTube channel with 952k subscribers" is irrelevant for notability, and the two sources offered have failed to convince others. Sandstein 18:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amala Ekpunobi[edit]

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

Non-notable individual, all coverage found is from social medial links. Perhaps too early in her career. Oaktree b (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue the page on Amala should stay, and be developed.
Amala has a YouTube channel with 952k subscribers, and all of this has been done since January 2022. This is quite impressive, and I for one would like to know more about her background. 82.34.171.120 (talk) 17:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, I am the person who made the reply 20th March 2023 @ 17:55. or 83.34.171.120 Cobblars (talk) 17:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Amala needs coverage in reliable sources, has she been featured in any magazines or newspapers? Oaktree b (talk) 18:19, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is some stuff at:
https://www.studlife.com/forum/2023/03/08/sympathy-for-the-devil-amala-ekpunobi-and-the-free-speech-dilemma

https://www.hollywoodintoto.com/amala-ekpunobi-interview-prager-u/

And Google Books CT55555(talk) 20:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Student newspapers aren't generally a very good source. Second one seems ok-ish. Oaktree b (talk) 22:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
you can buy subcribers, so youtube numbers aren't a good indicator. Oaktree b (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I agree this is probably a case of "too soon". I don't see sufficient coverage from outlets independent of PragerU. Walt Yoder (talk) 22:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:16, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:39, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Primary Colors in Psychology[edit]

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

This article started out unclear and just got worse from there. It's uncited for the most part and it's not apparent what the reader is supposed to get out of it. ... discospinster _talk 01:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 01:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

socks Duckmather (talk) 03:42, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi the Article has relevant information even if it is unclear it does not confuse the readers please check Opponent process and unique hues

2806:103E:B:55D0:7D77:3551:9153:BEF4 (talk) 04:00, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the link of a book: https://books.google.com.mx/books?id=tXg0AAAAIAAJ&q=%22Primary+Colors+Psychological%22+-wikipedia&dq=%22Primary+Colors+Psychological%22+-wikipedia&hl=es-419&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjg1q-RspT-AhWkmmoFHWuODXQQ6AF6BAgFEAM#%22Primary%20Colors%20Psychological%22%20-wikipedia

2806:103E:B:55D0:7D77:3551:9153:BEF4 (talk) 04:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is incomprehensible as is, and any better article that could be written in its place could just as well be a section in Color psychology. ℰmi1y_⧼T·C⧽ 05:38, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

more socks Duckmather (talk) 03:42, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

There is more information in the external links and detailed information there 2806:103E:B:55D0:7D77:3551:9153:BEF4 (talk) 06:05, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should check Ewald Hering there it gives you information about the pairs of those colors and RYB color model 2806:103E:B:55D0:7D77:3551:9153:BEF4 (talk) 06:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend you also check the Article Primary color has various types of primary colors including Psychological Primary Colors or Primary Colors in Psychology 187.133.121.198 (talk) 06:39, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Article Primary Colors in Psychology should not be deleted because it is verified that these types of colors exist and should not be confused with Color psychology

187.133.121.198 (talk) 15:26, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, it should not be deleted, but references must be added Yesedition (talk) 15:28, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

they are right, we must not delete it, we must improve it by adding more sources

Signature: Pasletina (talk) 15:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They are right, we must not be ugly and we must not delete it and we must improve it by adding more sources and the truth is that most of us want it not to be deleted and so the discussion ends here and I am going to remove the template added in the article Primary Colors in Psychology kind-hearted Signed By Galansi (talk) 15:36, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have just blocked a whole load of socks related to this article. I believe it has been written by one person. All of the comments advocating 'keep' above this comment were written by that one person. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:20, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be nonsense. Lead certainly is, and isn't a summary of the body. Not sure what the body says!! - Roxy the dog 07:35, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. As multiple editors point out, notability is based on WP:SIGCOV, and is not affected by whether a software is still in use. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:10, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aglets[edit]

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

This is a software project that garnered brief trade media notice about 25 years ago, then was abandoned. While the concept of mobile agents has persisted and is notable, this particular software package is not. Suggest we delete this article and fold any relevant content into mobile agent —dgies^t_c 23:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:22, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found below. ~~the only inline source at the moment is a passing mention, and there are no significant secondary sources otherwise to pass WP:GNG.~~ PopoDameron ⁠talk 04:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is not sources. The problem is this is defunct, non-notable software. Is this actually used anywhere, or is it a flash in the pan from 20 years ago? —dgies^t_c 16:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dgies: Why would being defunct necessarily point to being non-notable? By that argument, we should delete the article for Windows 3.0 too since all of its sources are from the 90s and nobody uses it anymore. I would argue that if a piece of software was once notable, then it is notable forever. PopoDameron ⁠talk 16:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is actually a really cool idea, despite me never hearing about it before. There's not insignificant amount of stuff written about it: [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66]. There are probably more in the dreaded second page of Google results. Seems like good stuff. I'll see if I can add stuff to the article tomorrow, but to me it passes the bar. SWinxy (talk) 04:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any current coverage of this? The objection is not lack of sources, its lack of relevance. Looks like this project dies in its cradle 20 years ago and nobody really used it for anything. —dgies^t_c 15:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But like, is that a reason for not being notable? The latest of the 8 sources is from 2009, which I admit is a long time ago. I don't think there's a guideline that excludes this because of that though. Notability is not temporary. SWinxy (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mobile agents, totally agree with nominator. There may well be 'sources out there', but the principle here is a defunct software tool that is a subset of a wider toolset. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per the book sources identified by SWinxy. No prejudice against merging as an editorial preference (after this discussion is closed), but I don't see any basis for deleting the article here at WP:AFD. Suriname0 (talk) 21:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:00, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There might be an argument for deletion that I'd agree with but I have not seen one here yet. See WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Thincat (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The opinions are almost all somewhat weak, but taken together there is still consensus to keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paul André Beaulieu[edit]

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

Declined prod. Unreferenced stub for 15 years. No coverage to meet WP:BIO. Ambassadors are not inherently notable, neither is having multiple roles. LibStar (talk) 23:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, Iraq, Lebanon, France, Portugal, Canada, and Brazil. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:21, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being Canadian ambassador to successively Brazil, the UN and France suggests a diplomat at the top of the pile. These are three very important postings in succession. It is true that it is currently unreferenced, but his tenure of these posts can be confirmed by online sources. Print sources are more likely sources for the time he was operating, of course. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MUSTBESOURCES LibStar (talk) 10:16, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You know as well as I do that print sources are harder to find. Claiming that an article on a clearly notable individual active in the pre-internet age should be deleted just because there are no sources yet is going against both the spirit of Wikipedia and common sense. To me, it always suggests that an editor making such a claim simply wants to delete articles for dogmatic reasons rather than for the good of Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:46, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As an admin, you should know better than to use a WP:MUSTBESOURCES argument in a deletion discussion. LibStar (talk) 06:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You should know better than to attempt to rubbish another editor's opinion, especially after it has been explained to you. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You should know better than to jump into a WP:MUSTBESOURCES !vote and perhaps do a search for sources first over a few days, even if they are off-line sources, and come back when you have your tangible evidence of sources. Although Google books goes back decades. Simply trying to rubbish another editor who points out the fault of another editor's vote is not befitting of an admin who should display highest standards on WP. LibStar (talk) 11:35, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable diplomat and award winning author and fellow of the Royal Society of Canada. Some sources Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec, Canadian Who's Who, Le Monde 1968, Le Monde 1970, Montreal Star 1967. There's more in newspapers.com re his various postings, UN, Brazil etc. Piecesofuk (talk) 14:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I thought he gets a free pass as notable because you believe all ambassadors are notable and therefore no need to supply sources. LibStar (talk) 14:46, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:ANYBIO as "The person has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary". See this. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 06:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is not Canada's dictionary of national biography. Did you mean to post a different link? -- asilvering (talk) 16:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, this is the DCB/DBC, and to my knowledge it includes only people who died prior to 2001. -- asilvering (talk) 17:01, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:22, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per WP:NPROF #3, "The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association" -- membership in the Royal Society of Canada, verifiable here, qualifies. I also think the sources provided by Piecesofuk are helpful. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:53, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~: The article is the definition of death by a thousand passing mentions. I've spent half an hour looking for sources everywhere. EBSCO has him participating in some notable discussions on NAFTA and other political issues of the times in the 1980s and 1990s, but there's no commentary *about* him in any of these sources. His participation doesn't make him inherently notable. Newspaper sources include coverage like this, about his appointment to the UN ([67]), and notices of where he has been appointed to, without any coverage about it. I found this article ([68]) about his role as the head of the Canadian legation in Lebanon (that's noted in a number of articles, but nothing really talking about it extensively). For LEvalyn's argument about WP:NPROF, it also clearly states right away in the next section that "An article's assertion that the subject passes this guideline is not sufficient" and there needs to be more sources for an article to establish notability... which I lean on the side of this not, for now. This reminds me of a recent deletion discussion of John Clemence Gordon Brown, a similarly "just not notable enough" Canadian diplomat. On his UN job -- I could only find sources saying he was appointed as "Deputy Permanent Representative" which feels less notable to me, but I may just be missing obvious things. Nomader (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck my !vote and moved to Keep, had somehow missed the clear sourcing collection from LibStar above (apologies for somehow glossing over it on my review of this discussion). Nomader (talk) 15:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nomader, what that "article's assertion" bit means is that the article can't just say "is a Royal Society member" but needs to actually have a citation to prove it, which LEvalyn did. -- asilvering (talk) 16:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out my mistake to me -- really helpful and you both are correct here. Nomader (talk) 04:19, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for all the great things he did that were very notable. Davidgoodheart (talk) 05:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Such as what? In what way does he meet WP:BIO? LibStar (talk) 05:32, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Star Mississippi 14:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paige Niemann[edit]

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

She had her 15 minutes. A clear case of WP:BIO1E, no in-depth coverage other than fluff pieces. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:BLP1E only applies iff all of the three criteria are met: (1) If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event – not met. RSes have covered her initially going viral on TikTok in 2019 ([69], [70], [71], etc) as well as the controversy about her OnlyFans account ([72], [73]); (2) If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual – not met. Niemann isn't a low-profile individual; she's (voluntarily) given an interview to a notable, reliable publication (Entertainment Tonight) and participates in self-promotion through her TikTok; (3) If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented – not really sure what the "event" would be here, but I guess probably going viral on TikTok as a Grande-lookalike? If that's the case, then this one definitely isn't met, as a lot sources covered her virality on TikTok (with her as the subject obviously). TL;DR, none of the criteria listed at BLP1E are met. Pamzeis (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I'd create a subsection in the Ariana Grande article about celebrity lookalikes; this person is mostly famous for running an Onlyfans that looks like Grande (most of this individual's "fame" seems to hinge on the fact she's selling an image/fantasy of Ariana Grande to a certain crowd of people). I don't want to call it parody, but she's riding someone else's coat tails for her own benefit. Oaktree b (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Entertainment, Internet, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources in the article pass GNG, and the subject passes BLP1E. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As for WP:BLP1E, there's a clause "if each of three is met". There can be no discrepancies in my opinion. And if this was the only argument to submit this article for removal, I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be kept.--Rodgers V (talk) 13:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree this is a BLP violation. A 19-year-old with a Tiktok isn't inherently a high-profile individual. The coverage that can be summarized as "check out this Ariana Grande impersonator on Tiktok" is one event. And this isn't significant to Ariana Grande's biography. We are left with "teenager has an OnlyFans" account, which is not a suitable topic for an article. Walt Yoder (talk) 17:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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