Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 September 2

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

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 23:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ghoul (novel)

[edit]
Ghoul (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. There are many books of this title, so a redirect to author could be misleading. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully we can get this resolved now. Boleyn (talk) 18:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found another source for the film. On a side note, these weren't easy sources to find given the commonness of the title so I can see how they may have been missed. It's kind of telling that I had to finish searching today because there were so many false positives to sort through. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:24, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Schools' Bursars Association

[edit]
Independent Schools' Bursars Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Possible ATD would be redirect to Independent Schools Council, but I think that is potentially confusing. Boleyn (talk) 21:13, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:22, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Galorath

[edit]
Dan Galorath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

CEO of Non-notable company. Fails WP:NBIO. Sawada Katsuo (talk) 23:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While the sourcing in the article is currently pretty awful (mostly written by the subject or trivial), there are a number of quality sources in google books which are independent and demonstrate significant coverage. The most substantial of these is Capers Jones (2014). The Technical and Social History of Software Engineering. Addison-Wesley. pp. 136–137.; which I added to the article and can be used to improve it further. Given that a history of software engineering devotes a subsection entirely to Galorath and his company, I think its clear he passes criteria 1 of WP:NACADEMIC.4meter4 (talk) 18:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, plenty of significant coverage in books.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 00:47, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 17:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. HighKing++ 17:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. HighKing++ 17:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete As per nom. Advert of the company.JeepersClub (talk) 11:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Blocked sock. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seddon talk 23:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there are several articles there by Sarah Parez from TechCruch and I can't see any reason to think she isn't independent of the subject. She's not a "non-staff contributor" (in a manner that might make her work the sort of "dependent coverage" that WP:NCORP discourages), she's an on-staff reporter and has been since 2011. But given that we consider multiple instances of coverage by the same source to be a single source for our purposes here, there are a number of other similar instances of coverage. The fact that the subject's CEO has been quoted by the journalist does not make the journalist no longer independent, nor does it make the CEO the "source" of that coverage (a logical fallacy). St★lwart111 02:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Stalwart111.4meter4 (talk) 19:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Fading

[edit]
The Fading (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I feel like this should be discussed. It's a borderline meet of WP:NBAND at best, not seeming to meet any other criterion than perhaps #7: "Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city". The scene in question being Israeli melodic death metal. And maybe not that either? Geschichte (talk) 19:50, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:58, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article failed WP:BAND as the band is non-notable. They failed to chart since formation and every source I found is unreliable, non-independent, trivial, and poorly sourced. They never appeared in local or national news, which is one of the major factors this band is non-notable. Based on what I searched on Google, the band rarely appears, even on news articles. With that being said, The Fading should never have a Wikipedia article. A2013a (talk) 23:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Their album has several reviews (see here) so that's a good start. I am neutral at this time. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 08:07, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GhostDestroyer100: Album reviews don't count as criteria for notability. See WP:INHERITED for more information. A2013a (talk) 11:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I came from huwiki where they count as reliable sources. But the rules are different here, I know, so I say they aren't notable because I couldn't find anything reliable about them anyways, but that's partly because of the bland name. Anyways, if this goes, the album should be nominated as well because it's just as unnotable. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seddon talk 23:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clearly fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NBAND #1 for lack of quality sources that are independent and contain significant coverage. The sources in the article are unreliable such as social media websites like Facebook and blogs. A BEFORE search yielded nothing; although it's possible Hebrew language sources exist either offline or behind a paywall in a newspaper article. Does not meet any of the other NBAND requirements either.4meter4 (talk) 19:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DaDaBIK

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

Non-notable software release. Only citations are to primary sources, youtube, and to passing mentions stating that this software is used by a specific university. ST47 (talk) 18:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Despite the flood of obviously-canvassed comments which have been haphazardly thrown onto this page, no additional references to reliable secondary sources have appeared. As a summary, we have 10 links to the website itself, a github repo, 4 youtube videos, and 3 websites that each contain a single mention stating that they use this product. There is no significant coverage in secondary sources whatsoever. ST47 (talk) 07:51, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are 34 editors against the deletion so far and no comments in favor (except ST47's one). I think some comments in particular clearly describe how important this software has been in various contexts. It seems this has no relevance for the decision though, so I am not sure why a discussion for deletion has been started. I feel sad when I read "comments which have been haphazardly thrown onto this page": people spent time and energy to write those comments, express their opinion, actively contribute to this discussion and in turn to the quality of Wikipedia. Discussions should be one of the principle who guide Wikipedia but it seems the comments have been ignored, superficially evaluated and not taken into consideration. Furthermore, I have received a warning related to a Sockpuppet investigations on my account, so I guess someone thinks I have used multiple accounts to write these comments. Really? Anyone who knows a bit of my history and my level of commitment knows that I would never even think to do something like that. I am pretty sure you have all the technology means to assess that the comments below are not mine (except one). Ugeeeen (talk) 09:58, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's all nice and dandy, but this is not a vote, and 34 "editors" who clearly are only here for one purpose and who fail to cite any relevant Wikipedia policy, and which were obviously canvassed here, is not worth much, beyond suspicion as to the motives of said "editors". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:16, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:38, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLUDGEON by canvassed users is still BLUDGEON and disruptive.

Hello. I don't agree with the fact that DaDaBIK is not-notable software. It was one of the very first no-code/low-code platform (first public release: 2001, ~20 years ago); considering the importance of this market nowadays, in my opinion - even just for historical reasons - it should be on Wikipedia. Its Wikipedia page has been here and regularly updated since 2011. Apart from the historical reasons, DaDaBIK is still relevant today, more than ever, with thousands of customers all over the world and a community that has produced almost 20k messages in its forum. About its use by Universities: Universities have been used DaDaBIK a lot for several aims (internal admin tools, research purposes, teaching), sometimes it's hard to give a proof of all these uses because in the vast majority of the cases, we are talking about internal processes/tools; however, If you check Google Scholar for "dadabik", you will get lots of entries and this should suggest the fact that is notable in the academic world. I can try anyway to improve the page. Thanks. Ugeeeen (talk) 19:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, I have to agree with the rest here as the chairman of Asparna research center for software. Our student researchers are using DaDaBik for several years with good results. We feel it fills an important gap between heavyweight prototyping and the manual tedious work of programming from scratch. It is definitely important in the NGO/NPO, Educational and Governmental spaces where budgets are slimmer. We hope there is no real reason for this deletion as we think it is substantial software, and definitely not non-notable (I would advise marketing it harder though!) -- All the best, Etamar, 7pm August 27 2021 (UTC)

Hi. We have been using DaDaBIK for several years and our trainees are able to develop their own applications in a few days. This is a great software and we do not agree with the deletion.— 94.31.90.86 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 11:33, 23 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Hi. I also do not agree that DaDaBIK is not-notable software. We have been using it for several years. We are a small museum with limited budget, and it ideally suits our needs. It is easy to set up and to use. Software can only be developed if it has a user base that warrants the development work, and in order for people to find out about it, it needs publicity, and Wikipedia is an ideal way of getting that. Please reconsider the suggestion to delete this from Wikipedia.— 77.75.110.165 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 11:42, August 27, 2021 (UTC).

I don't think DaDaBik is a non-notable software. I am one between thousands of users of this great software and I think the page in Wikipedia can help people know more about it after a search of Google, if they, like me, are allways going to Wikipedia in order to know more about something. Celson Aquino, 08:42, 27 August 2021 (GMT -3)— 177.82.223.6 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 11:44, August 27, 2021 (UTC).

Dadabik is unique and useful. I did a survey of similar software and Dadabik is the best of the bunch.— 73.65.21.185 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 12:29, August 27, 2021 (UTC).

Please, don't delete this software. It is GREAT. — 179.98.157.125 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 11:49, August 27, 2021 (UTC).

Keep him, please.— Samir Candido (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 11:54, August 27, 2021 (UTC).

Don't delete it, this is software used by many. I was looking for this software for 5 years and never found it until recently.— Dhjhendriks (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 11:30, 27 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Agreed. Dadabik is used by many people and companies, I am not sure why deletion is necessary and seems to contradict the Wiki spirit.— 66.186.210.171 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 11:41, 23 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]

I don't agree that DaDaBik is non-notable. I use this software as the primary front end for online databases and find it the most useful of any software I use.

I'm a former user of DaDaBIK. I'm also against the deletion of the entry. Rather, I would like to see the entry further modified (by third parties) and expanded by pointing to other no-code/low-code CRUD platforms (possibly with a comparison page). Danzac64 (talk) 11:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DaDaBik is a notable software. There are just a few CRUD solutions as complete as DaDaBik. Please do not remove it.— 170.250.194.111 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 12:12, August 27, 2021 (UTC).

I do not agree with this deletion! As a supporter and donor of Wiki for many years now I feel this is entirely inappropriate. I have used this software for many years as a database front-end software to several databases in the not-for-profit sector. It’s designed for its ease of use by non-programmers and used by thousands across the World. It was so unique when it appeared 20 years ago ….and still is to this day. Its creator Dr. Eugenio Tacchini has spent many years improving and building on the application and it has a huge following. I personally believe that the reason the Wiki team have come to this conclusion is because of its perceived low-profile. Probably because it’s not sold off the shelf as a finished product, but as a software which underpins one. Its popularity, function and importance is therefore hidden from obvious view. I fully understand Wiki’s researchers for coming to this initial conclusion, and I know we have no real say in this matter…..but I respectfully request this decision is reversed so that Wiki can continue to make the World know about Dr Tacchini and his team’s incredible software and the valuable contribution they make to society as a whole. Please seriously reconsider this decision.— MarcLow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 12:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Disagree with the delete suggestion and the offered reason. DaDaBIk has been around a long time. It is stable and is continually developed and maintained. As noted by others, it is used by many thousands of institutions and individuals as a low-code front end to SQL-like databases. It long ago made the transition from free software to paid, which means the market finds value in it. You can find it listed in many online sources for database front ends, such as https://www.gadgetxplore.com/database-management-tools/ to take one example.Dh10~enwiki (talk) 12:24, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We have been using Dadabik for many years. Deleting it from Wikipedia would be a shame.— 2003:c3:c721:fb00:a815:1016:e81f:a014 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 12:27, August 27, 2021 (UTC).

I use DaDaBIK for commercial purposes. I can confirm that it is a notable software. It should have an article on Wikipedia.— 195.111.130.65 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 12:30, August 27, 2021 (UTC).

Hello all. IMHO Dadabik is a notable software and i think it's relevant to give it a page on Wikipedia ! Dadabik lives for almost 20 years and it does not have serious competitors as a database front-end software. New versions are released on regular basis and use newest technology. I use Dadabik for commercial purposes too. It's quite important for end user customers to see we use notable software as it has its own Wikipedia page ;-) 80.12.85.16 (talk) 12:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)— 80.12.85.16 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Dadabik is used software and still being maintained so it should not be deleted — 62.251.113.42 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 12:49, August 27, 2021 (UTC).

As an IT consultant, I have used Dadabik for numerous projects spanning multiple Fortune 500 companies over two decades. It is definitely worthy of a Wikipedia page, more so that most of the so-called celebrities that have a page IMHO. I suspect there are few external mentions/links if, like me, most are not in a position to disclose proprietary information; ergo, cannot link to the apps we create. Dadabik is notable software, without a doubt. Sounds to me like there's and admin who needs to do better research.— Grimblefritz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 13:14, August 27, 2021 (UTC).

Lectori Salutem, Following and affirming previous editors, DaDaBik is excellent software and deserving to be in Wikipedia. Bosch Bastiaan (talk) 14:26, 27 August 2021 (UTC)— Bosch Bastiaan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I volunteer for a small community museum and we use Dadabik to catalogue all our exhibits and documents. We looked at a few other museum software packages but found Dadabik is by far the easiest to develop and use. It is notable software, up to date and widely used. Please don't delete the Wikipedia page.— 203.206.17.24 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 14:44, 27 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]

DaDaBiK has been used by us for many years and is an important asset for many of our projects including student/course management, COVID-19 sample management, inventory management, and content management. It is a highly versatile software with an active community, regular updates and developments. We strongly disagree that DaDaBik is a non-notable software, contrary DaDaBiK is an excellent tool for database development, teaching, and practical applications.Stefan.taube (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2021 (UTC)— Stefan.taube (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

DaDaBik is certainly not "non-notable" software. It should certainly remain on Wiki to facilitate more people finding out about this excellent tool for integrating websites and databases. It's also updated regularly and I don't really understand why it's deletion from Wikipedia is proposed.— 2001:bb6:aac7:e800:741e:c730:bfb9:a394 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 17:37, August 27, 2021 (UTC).

I can't understand why the article about DaDaBik should be deleted. I owe a lot of information about software to Wikipedia. And DaDaBik is certainly not one of the negligible applications. Tikita (talk) 19:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. DaDaBik is mature (~10 years old), reliable, used by thousands of applications and still actively supported. That doesn't necessarily translate to non-notable. It's still a solid tool for fast development and its reference should remain on Wikipedia. Cheers!— 2601:644:8900:2ba0:a40a:3f6:a9aa:ab41 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 19:41, August 27, 2021 (UTC).

I'm an early adopter and we keep a couple of instances at the Semmelweis University in Budapest - one of the highest traffic cardiac centers in Europe. It has notable features and those who seek a solution for a PHP database frontend would find out that it offers even more nowdays. It has been actively developed, there is a responsive community one may access and rely on. My experience contradicts to the reason given for the intended removal. I strongly object against it.— 94.44.103.15 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 21:20, August 27, 2021 (UTC).

This is an active product regularly updated and used on the internet today.— 174.253.194.136 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 21:30, August 27, 2021 (UTC).

Please do not delete. My company has been developing websites using this software for over 10 years. It is a great platform for the developer with limited experience in PHP and Mysql who is interested in quickly setting up a website but in the process experiencing a learning development process and understanding of underlying principles involved. No other similar software has been apply to fulfill our requirements.— 2403:5800:5200:9fc:ed54:177d:e032:57e (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 23:17, August 27, 2021 (UTC).

To write that DaDaBik is non-notable says much about the writer and not much about DaDaBik. The writer's comments about citations may be correct, but a simple browser search would reveal the non-notable comment to be nonsense. The editor should clearly state what needs to be done - without uninformed editorializing. Constructive criticism is good. Unsupported conclusions are contrary to what wikipedia is all about. DaDaBik should retain its place in wikipedia.— 71.12.235.73 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 02:19, August 28, 2021 (UTC).

We considered many museum software packages and CMS products for image management when starting to digitise several hundred thousand images in the NZRLS archive, and selected DaDaBIK as a mature and well supported product to build from. It has the capability of customisation at multiple levels depending on technical skill, enabled the quick development of a prototype by importing a database and now has delivered a front-end package with straightforward multi-user access control and no annual fees. It's definitely notable software. LurkingKiwi (talk) 03:51, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple versions have been evaluated for vulnerabilities and are indexed by the US National Institute of Standards and Technologies [2]. An unimportant software package would not be subject to this kind of evaluation and scrutiny. In my opinion this subject meets notability criteria. Medmyco (talk) 15:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I retired as an Asst. Vice Chancellor at UCLA in charge of the campus-wide administrative information systems. I rely on Wikipedia to find background on the development history of products and companies I am considering. These days I am leading a project to develop a web site for my county's genealogical society and evaluated DaDaBIK and eventually purchased it for the society to host our large local records databases. I note that there is significant interest in the product among many other genealogical and historical societies as well. I have seen a lot less significant topics on Wikipedia pages than this one. Please do not remove it. Don Worth, Oxnard, CA

We have used DaDaBik for our business for at least a decade. It is not "non-notable" and should not be deleted from Wikipedia.

For many developers and business information systems planners, references to application generators is important. Not being a "significant" market product should not cause reference access to diminish for the sake of potential growth and business development.

Comment Could anyone provide just 2 (not more) best reliable sources (eg. reviews in published/online magazines, peer reviewed papers in good journals independent on the software authors)? I´m leaning to delete this one otherwise. Pavlor (talk) 10:20, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I have added/fixed several external references to the "Popularity and notability" section, including a Google Scholar link where you can find many publications (also journals) discussing DaDaBIK. DaDaBIK has been featured in popular press as well, for example on PHP Journal (German paper magazine, no more active) and PC Professionale (Italian magazine, still active), during the next few days I will try to add correct references for these as well. Ugeeeen (talk) 12:39, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could I ask only for best two of these sources to be linked/cited here for my (and others) convenience? Pavlor (talk) 12:44, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With "here" you mean here in the discussion and not in the article itself, right? Yes, I can do that, but I need time to go through all of them. I will do it within the next few days.
I want to add that I have just read what Grimblefritz wrote on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ugeeeen and I think he/she made a very good point about how to evaluate the notability of a software. I invite everybody to read it.Ugeeeen (talk) 15:28, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Wikipedia has its own somewhat arcane rules: eg. WP:N and WP:RS for start. Arguments like those used by Grimblefritz have next to no value in discussions like this. Notability issue aside, without reliable source, we can´t even write an article (WP:V). Pavlor (talk) 15:46, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out above, multiple versions are indexed by NIST which is pretty much the gold-standard for notable software. I consider that more of a notability credential than a mention in the back pages of Wired. Medmyco (talk) 17:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also here are two links to solid peer reviewed literature citing DaDaBiK: The first reference is from a computer science journal and lists it as a first suggested development tool, comparing a few others packages to it [3]; and the second provides an example of its integration in the study of plant chromosome number [4]. Medmyco (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As these sources aren´t directly available, I need some time to access them (few days at most). Before I look at them, could you please summarize how much space is devoted to DaDaBIK? If it is only a mere mention or a sole short paragraph, these sources probably would not suffice to establish notability of the article subject. Pavlor (talk) 08:22, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pavlor, I looked at "Chromosome numbers of the flora of Germany" and all it says is "we used DaDaBik". So I suppose that means something out there in the world, but it doesn't mean much here. Medmyco, what we need is secondary sources that discuss the topic. So that other article might be something but this isn't. Drmies (talk) 21:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, the other article evaluates four applications using "The analytic hierarchy process". "In this study, four alternative database development tools are evaluated: DaDaBIK, DataFlex, Oracle Application Express, and FileMaker" [5] so yes, it discusses the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ugeeeen (talk • contribs)
Thanks. I just browsed the other article (Evaluating distributed IoT databases...). I think it could be an useable source (impact factor is 3.734 and the article author seems to be independent of DaDaBIK). However, as it is a simple comparison of 4 products, there is not much space devoted to DaDaBIK itself (one to two short phrases per evaulation criterion - there are three of them - few tables and a mere mention in conclusions). If this is the best source we got, I don´t think this is enough for a stand-alone article. I will try to find some suitable redirect target. Pavlor (talk) 07:53, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, It's a journal, independent, they evaluated software alternatives using a framework. Among all the possible options for database application builders (if you google that, you'll probably find hundreds of options) they chose four tools, including DaDaBIK, and they evaluated those four tools, the whole article is about this evaluation. This should be enough according to WP:N. I have checked about half of the platforms available in No-code_development_platform, they have a stand-alone article and none of them have journal sources.
As noted by Medmyco, its presence in the National Vulnerability Database of the National_Institute_of_Standards_and_Technology is also a pretty solid reference [6].
Finally, if you are looking for popular press, please consider PHP Journal (German paper magazine about PHP and Web development, as many other IT-related paper magazines, no longer published), there is an in-depth review about DaDaBIK that consists of six pages in the Nov/Dec 2010 issue.Ugeeeen (talk) 11:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Quality of coverage is the issue here. Few phrases in one source can´t show notability of the article subject. However, that magazine article you mentioned looks promising, could you provide more precise citation (author, publisher, issn)? Offline sources are fine, if there are more of this kind, I think there is still a hope for this article. Pavlor (talk) 15:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pavlor, I can add more sources but I have the feeling that some comments have been ignored so I would like to summarize what we have so far:
  • two editors (including me) pointed out that the presence in the National Vulnerability Database of the National_Institute_of_Standards_and_Technology is a solid source and proof of notability. Do you agree? If not, why?
  • When you said "Few phrases in one source can´t show notability of the article subject.", if you are referring to "Evaluating distributed IoT databases...", I don't think this is true. If we want to count the occurrences of the word "dadabik" in the article, they are 24, but does it make sense to evaluate the coverage counting the number of words/sentences? The important thing is that it's not a minor mention, the whole article is about using a framework to evaluate those four softwares, isn't it clear to any expert of the field that they have been chosen also because of their notability?
  • The PHP Journal reference: Carsten Möhrke, "Ersteller eines Datenbank-Frontends mit Dadabik" (PHP Journal, issue Nov/Dec 2010, neue mediengesellschaft ulm mbh). Here [7] you can find a temporary picture of the cover that shows that the article about DaDaBIK was one of the cover stories
  • PC Professionale is one of the leading IT-related paper magazines in Italy (founded in 1991 and still available). Here are two articles about DaDaBIK: [8] and [9]
  • html.it is one of the leading web magazines about Web development in Italy (founded in 1997 and still available), here are an article by Andrea Ferrini [10] and here are two articles by Claudio Garau [11] [12]
  • Linux.com, "Create your Web database applications with DaDaBIK", short article about DaDaBIK [13]
  • Louie Andre, DaDaBIK Review on financesonline.com [14]
There are for sure other sources and I haven't had the time to go through all the google scholar records, but I think this is already more than enough to prove notability. Ugeeeen (talk) 18:50, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My short review of your sources:
  • presence in the National Vulnerability Database of the National_Institute_of_Standards_and_Technology - a mention is a mention (nothing for notability in the Wikipedia sense)
  • If we want to count the occurrences of the word "dadabik" in the article - there is not much real content about the article subject (the only criterion that really matters here)
  • first PC professionale - short news (useable in the article, but adds next to nothing to notability)
  • second PC professionale - another short news (well, somewhat longer than the previous)
  • first html.it - short describtion
  • second html.it - short news
  • third html.it - another short news (well, somewhat longer than the previous)
  • Linux.com - ultra short news with a link to external site with user submited content (note there is no info about staff or editorial policy, not a good sign anyway)
  • financesonline.com - is this even a RS? Phrases like "Create a Listing for Your Product" or "Why write guest posts for us? You can tell people about your company and promote your brand" certainly raise some questions. Sure, this review was written by a staff writer, but I can´t take this page as an independent source. Smells like a paid advert site.
Conclusion: Only real source showing notability of the article subject is the 6 page article in the PHP Journal, which we have no access to (well, I will try to find it in library). We need multiple good sources to establish notability of the article subject. Pavlor (talk) 05:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with most of your points. I have the feeling that you just want to delete the page, no matter what:
  • financesonline.com "smells like a paid advert site". I don't know how it smells, but this article is absolutely not a paid article, an adv or similar. It's pretty evident if you check the bio of the author "B2B & SaaS market analyst and senior writer for FinancesOnline". Do you really think that a paid review would get, as a score, only 6.2? This would make no sense to anyone.
  • Linux.com that's not "user submitted content", for what I see, the author is, well an "author"[15]
  • html.it, pc professionale and all the articles you consider short. Two of them are absolutely not short considering the context. Take [16] for example: the "story" about version 4.5 was the introduction of this locking mechanism and the license change. The article entirely covers this story. Can you elaborate more about how you measure how long an article should be? I can't find detailed information on this, what I read is that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention", the clear example of trivial mention that Wikipedia makes is - in an article about Bill Clinton - the mention of the band where Bill Clinton played in High school. I think that's very different respect to what we have with the html.it article I mentioned. Do you agree?
  • "Evaluating distributed IoT databases...": strongly disagree, the article reviews several aspects of the subject
  • PHP Journal: the fact you can't access the article shouldn't be used as an argument in favor of deletion. I have posted a temporary picture of the cover, I can post a temporary pic with the relevant part of the index, I obviously won't post the entire article. Ugeeeen (talk) 07:59, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If my intention was to delete this article, I could simply write: "Delete Not enough coverage in reliable sources to establish notability of the article subject". Instead, I´m trying to find good sources among those you posted (and no, I have nothing against PHP Journal, I wrote above it is a good source, but one source alone can´t show notability of the article subject). From your reply above, it is obvious it was a waste of my time. Note I think there may be other sources like the PHP Journal one and the article subject may be notable enough for an article, but I´m in no mood to look further. Hope this ends as no consensus, because many regular editors would not take lightly such a horrible canvassing etc. and would be inclined to "vote" delete unless really convincing sources are presented. Pavlor (talk) 08:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another, additional source [17] Ugeeeen (talk) 08:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whoever canvassed the multiple editors who contributed here and said, essentially, "keep it, it's a good product" or words to that effect really did everyone a disservice. There are few things that serious Wikipedia editors hate more than a flood of "yeah sure keep it" from people who've never contributed. And it seems to me that here we have a few dozen geeks (you know, IT-computer-database savvy people) who are all rushing to say "yes keep it", and none of them, including the creator, ever took the time to acquaint themselves with our rules and policies and guidelines--but you are exactly the kind of people who should know how to navigate websites. The current version of the article doesn't have a single link which could be called a "secondary source", never mind an independent one. Seriously, a Google search? It doesn't matter that it's a Google Scholar search: it's the equivalent of "Google it", the standard answer on Facebook to any serious query. I am sure y'all can do better than that, but so far, in this last decade, you haven't done it for this article. Drmies (talk) 21:35, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for the involvement in bludgeoning, but sincerely my comment was not intended to do this (and I think my comment was not simply stating that the software is good and shouldn't be deleted). I'm not connected to Ugeeeen and I'm not using DaDaBIK anymore (I used it for a Diploma Thesis of a student of mine long time ago). I understand very well the reasons of the admins (looking for popularity and notability of the software; looking for independent or secondary sources) and I don't argue on this. I would like anyway to add a tiny contribution to the discussion mentioning that also FileMaker, Oracle APEX and DataFlex (i.e. the DB handling tools evaluated in the paper [18] together with DaDaBIK) are all entries in Wikipedia. HTH Danzac64 (talk) 09:10, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I was going lean into deleting but given the ambiguity in the discussion would appreciate if users could make clear their views on the article's notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seddon talk 23:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have provided several additional reliable and independent sources (see my comments above). I'll add this additional one: a guide published by the Universitat de Barcelona [19]. About 7 pages of the guide are dedicated to DaDaBIK. There are still a lot records in Google scholar to check. I would also like to point out that the notability of the software (and related proposals for deletion) should not be based on the sources currently mentioned in the article WP:NEXIST. Reading the very first message, I think this is exactly what happened with the current proposal: deletion nomination for non-notability based on the current version of the article. Ugeeeen (talk) 07:33, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make the whole discussion more readable, I'll summarize the references found so far here:
  • Carsten Möhrke, "Ersteller eines Datenbank-Frontends mit Dadabik" (PHP Journal, issue Nov/Dec 2010, neue mediengesellschaft ulm mbh). Temporary picture of the cover: [20] 6 pages dedicated to DaDaBIK.
  • Alelaiwi, Abdulhameed. "Evaluating distributed IoT databases for edge/cloud platforms using the analytic hierarchy process." Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing 124 (2019): 41-46. "In this study, four alternative database development tools are evaluated: DaDaBIK, DataFlex, Oracle Application Express, and FileMaker"
  • Iglesias, Domingo Iglesias Sesma, and Ernest Abadal. "Creació i publicació d'una base de dades relacional amb MySQL i DaDaBik." (2009). Material published by Universitat de Barcelona for the Database Administration students. 7 pages dedicated to DaDaBIK
  • PC Professionale (leading IT-related paper magazines in Italy): [21] and [22]
  • html.it (leading web magazines about Web development in Italy): [23] [24][25]
  • Louie Andre, DaDaBIK Review on financesonline.com [26]. The score assigned is 6.2/10, this makes obvious the fact the is not paid adv (someone suspected adv, that's why I am highlighting this)
  • Marco Fioretti, Linux.com, "Create your Web database applications with DaDaBIK", very short article [27]
  • Paule, Juraj, et al. "Chromosome numbers of the flora of Germany—A new online database of georeferenced chromosome counts and flow cytometric ploidy estimates." Plant Systematics and Evolution 303.8 (2017): 1123-1129.
  • Okunade, Emmanuel Akintunde. "Design and implementation of a web-based geotechnical database management system for Nigerian soils." Modern Applied Science 4.11 (2010): 36.
Someone said "a mention is a mention" and it's true, I agree, however considering the quality of the publications and the number of mentions, I think this last point could still be taken into consideration, together with all the other sources, to prove notability.Ugeeeen (talk) 09:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User guides and manuals are primary sources and they're not useful for writing an encyclopedia, because WP:NOTMANUAL. This being used by scholars as a common tool is not a good argument either if you can't find WP:GNG-compliant sources to back it up. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:02, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTMANUAL says that Wikipedia is not a manual, not that guides cannot be used as a source. Furthermore, that guide is absolutely not a primary source (see also [28]). But apart form that, you are missing my point, what I wrote is that [29] can be used to prove notability, not necessarily as a source in the article, because - again - WP:NEXIST. Ugeeeen (talk) 12:20, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But what would you expect to get out of a manual, except non-encyclopedic information as to how to use the software? In either case, it would be a dubious source, since it's essentially self-published by whoever wrote the guide. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:46, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in the previous comment you stated that such guide is a primary source and it's obviously not. I think you can extract some useful information from manuals and guides but the important thing is that there isn't any rule that prevents the use of guides and manuals as a source (in fact you can find manuals and guides as a source in other articles). Having said that, I think you are still missing the point, we are not discussing which sources to use in the article but if there are sources that prove notability WP:NEXIST. Actually, this work should have been done BEFORE the nomination for deletion, as explained in WP:BEFORE, regardless of the sources currently used in the article. Ugeeeen (talk) 09:42, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Alexander

[edit]
Sharon Alexander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot find any coverage beyond the single source provided in the article. The article has been around for sixteen years, and has never had more than the one inline source that the current article has. If no one is writing about her, she would seem to fail our notability guidelines, despite her multiple roles. GNG fail. --- Possibly ☎ 23:21, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly ☎ 23:21, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly ☎ 23:21, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly ☎ 23:21, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly ☎ 23:21, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly ☎ 23:21, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Geschichte (talk) 16:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

World Council for Comparative Education Societies

[edit]
World Council for Comparative Education Societies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unref article on conference of non-notable organisations. No obvious WP:ATD - wouldn't be suitable for a merge anyway as has no sourced information. Boleyn (talk) 14:21, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The member societies appear to be national learned societies and are probably notable. A redlink doesn't mean non-notable; it just means that nobody has written an article demonstrating notability yet. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:23, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Ortegón, Nicole Desirée (Summer 2009). "Common Interests, Uncommon Goals: Histories of the World Council of Comparative Education Societies and Its Members by Vandra Masemann, Mark Bray, & Maria Manzon (eds.) Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Center [CERC]/ Springer, 2007". European Education. 41 (2). M. E. Sharpe. ISSN 1056-4934.

      The article notes: "This volume is an indispensable contribution to the field of comparative education that will allow future generations of comparativists to attain an understanding of the field’s history and epistemological platforms. Part I delineates the rich develop- mental history of the World Council of Comparative Education Societies (WCCES). Part II is composed of twenty-two chapters devoted to articulating the history and development of WCCES member societies. Full chapters are not available for all of the member societies, which numbered thirty-six at the time of publication. In consideration of space, editors Masemann, Bray, and Manzon elected to devote full chapters to member societies founded prior to 1995 and with longer histories. However, each member society is acknowledged and its summary information provided. Full chapters are allocated to Europe-based national associations in Germany, Britain, Spain, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Poland, Greece, and Russia."

    2. Manzon, Maria; Bray, Mark (2006). "The Comparative and International Education Society (CIES) and The World Council of Comparative Education Societies (WCCES): Leadership, Ambiguities and Synergies" (PDF). Current Issues in Comparative Education. Vol. 8, no. 2. Teachers College, Columbia University. ISSN 1523-1615. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2021-08-29. Retrieved 2021-08-29.

      The abstract notes: "The Comparative and International Education Society (CIES) has, throughout its 50 years of existence, exercised leadership in the field of comparative education. It was one of the five societies that founded the World Council of Comparative Education Societies (WCCES) in 1970, an umbrella body that by 2006 brought together 35 national, subnational, regional and language-based societies. The CIES has continued to play a major role in WCCES affairs. The relationship has had ambiguities, while it has also provided many synergies for the promotion of the field of comparative education on a global basis. This article reviews the relationship between the CIES and the WCCES throughout their intertwined histories."

    3. Jacob, W. James; Ye, Huiyuan; Hogsett, Miranda L.; Han, Annette T.; Hasegawa, Midori; Jia, Lili; Jiang, Lin; Xu, Shangmou. "Global Trends in the Rise and Fall of Comparative Education Societies". In Wolhuter, C. C.; Wiseman, Alexander W. (eds.). Comparative and International Education: Survey of an Infinite Field. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing. pp. 29–59. doi:10.1108/S1479-367920190000036003. ISBN 978-1-78743-392-2. Retrieved 2021-08-29.

      The abstract notes: "An overview of the World Council of Comparative Education Societies is also discussed, including its lead organizational role in serving as a historical hub to help comparative education societies preserve and disseminate their respective histories"

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow World Council for Comparative Education Societies to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 09:14, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seddon talk 23:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Geschichte (talk) 16:16, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Curse of King Tut's Tomb (2006 film)

[edit]
The Curse of King Tut's Tomb (2006 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable television film, lacking significant coverage by independent sources per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 23:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator New information has been presented by multiple editors that has established the notability of the film. BOVINEBOY2008 14:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that in the past they've been considered a RS as far as reviews go when they're posted as an official review (rather than just a forum post), but to be honest I haven't used them as a source in years, mostly because they don't seem to really do film reviews anymore. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:08, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Even after excluding the contributions by socks the subsequent discussion seems to cement on a meeting of criteria 4 of WP:NARTIST based on works in permanent collections at ACMI and QVMAG along with contributions to an ARIA nominated album Seddon talk 23:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sadia Sadia

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

Neither WP:BIO or WP:ARTIST appear to be met. The only really independent coverage is a tiny bit in She Bop II, with the other sources being primar or user-generated. SmartSE (talk) 13:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 13:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment what is She Bop II? I think I'll vote delete, but I wanna know what She Bop II is first. Omniscientmoose42 (talk) 15:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC) blocked as a sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Omniscientmoose42 [reply]
Omniscientmoose42, a book, She Bop II: The Definitive History of Women in Rock, Pop and Soul by Lucy O’Brien. Before voting delete, perhaps check the sources? Vexations (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@E123765 and Omniscientmoose42: As mentioned in the nomination, the coverage in that book is minor (about half a page). If there were multiple books providing similar coverage, it might just be enough to satisfy BIO, but that level of coverage in one book is definitely insufficient. SmartSE (talk) 17:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seddon talk 23:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: @Littleolive oil has not given a reason for keeping. Do you have one? Geschichte (talk) 08:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am the subject of this page and most of this is easily fixable [apparently WP:BIO does sometimes welcome contributions from subjects although I have dared not go near wiki for fear of getting caught up in exactly what is happening now]. Please read the talk page comments, followed by the improved article with the corrected and additional updated links. For WP:MUSIC I would hope I pass for "gold album in at least one country" and WP:FILM, "selected preservation in a national museum" and/or "included in history of cinema programme." I appreciate that editing for a multi-disciplinary artist is difficult. This article can be improved, please give the article time to work its way through the ‘request for edit’ queue. Thanks.GreenForestRanger (talk) 13:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GreenForestRanger, it might be easier to list two or three sources that provide in-depth coverage so can we see if the WP:GNG is met. I see almost 100 sources listed in the article and its talk page, and have read all of them, but I struggle to see significant coverage. I do see some indications that WP:NARTIST might be met. Vexations (talk) 15:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Vexations Thanks for your comment. It would be good for someone from WP:VISUALARTS with a cross-disciplinary arts background to weigh in on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenForestRanger (talk • contribs) 18:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GreenForestRanger, this discussion is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Visual_arts/Article_alerts For what it' is worth; while I am not listed as a participant of that Wikiproject, I do have a "cross-disciplinary arts background". I have access to a fair number of arts publications either through the Wikipedia Library, a university or subscriptions to periodicals. Despite that, and reading every single source ever listed in the artcile under discussion, I have not been able to find the best indication or notability: significant coverage in several independent, reliable sources. I'm hoping that if such coverage exists, you might be able to point us to it. If it doesn't, then please just say so because in that case, we can focus on other ways of establishing notability, like museum collections. Vexations (talk) 19:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Vexations Thank you for your comment. I'm surprised that you don't find the citations independent and reliable, or the body of the coverage taken in its entirety as significant. IMDB requires third-party verification, Jaxsta is drawn from record company metadata, musicbrainz contains the attribution codes. I think I've provided the link to the Accession Numbers for ACMI's permanent collection as well as the footage of Federation Square, Melbourne and the QVMAG permanent collection accession numbers.
If what you are looking for is press, there is some but I have been struggling with it as, for example, major articles were published prior to digital archiving. Even The Australian, Dec 8th 2004 ‘Screening the Truth’ is only archived as a title in the Wayback Machine, but not the entirety of the article. Studio Sound, ‘Winning Women In The Industry’, November 1990, Studio Magazine,‘Frills and Spools’, December 1990, Audio Media, ‘The Female Touch’, February 1991, The Independent,‘Cutting Through Tape’, Oct.1991, The Mix,‘Fiddling the Meter’, November 1994, BBC Radio 1, Women’s Hour ‘The Glass Ceiling’, TX November 1995, Opus, ‘Sadia: the Equa Project’, October 1996 - none of these are archived. Even Music Week, ‘In The Studio: TUC United Against Racism ‘RESPECT’ June 1996 only digitally archives as far back as 1999. I am frustrated by this and if you can suggest some way around it, or some online resource, that would be great.
Some of this surrounds my work as a woman record producer in the late 1970's and 1980's, when there were almost no women in positions of authority in studio control rooms as record producers. The journey from there to working as an installation artist with work in at least one significant permanent collection [ACMI [[43]] is detailed here [[44]].GreenForestRanger (talk) 20:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GreenForestRanger, it shouldn't surprise you that I do not consider IMDB unreliable; Wikipedia:IMDB explains it. As for older sources; articles have been indexed before the internet archive, and while they may not be easy to access, there is no policy that says sources need to be available online, they just need to be published. I'm getting some hits on ProQuest, and I have found the article by Lawrie Zion in the Australian with EBSCO (Lawrie Zion. “Screening the Truth.” Australian, The. EBSCOhost, https://search-ebscohost-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bwh&AN=200412081014587991&site=ehost-live. Accessed 7 Sept. 2021.), available via the Wikipedia Library. I should note that Zion's article doesn't appear to mention you, so that does not help. Vexations (talk) 21:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Vexations “Screening the Truth” should do since the primary image occupying most of the space above the fold is mine. I have a photograph but not a scan. The Talk Page article's references has links to Brill (VSAC, Art & Perception) and ISEA.
Here's a few more, with apologies for any duplications: ‘A new era of recognition and voice has begun for QVMAG and the community’, The Sunday Examiner, August 29th 2021; Redmond, S and Verhagen, D (eds) ‘Ghosts of Noise’. In ‘The Model Citizen’. Melbourne: RMIT Gallery 2019; ‘Sadia Sadia - In Conversation with Evelyn Tsitas’, RMIT Gallery, Melbourne, Australia, March 2019; Australian Arts Review, ‘The Model Citizen’, February 5th 2019; Sadia, S "Ghosts of Noise' in Bidhan Jacobs 'Déjouer l’entropie', 'Les Devenirs Artistiques de L’Information', Sorbonne Paris June 10th & 11th 2015, co-sponsored by Le Bauhaus-Universität Weimar & Internationales Kolleg für Kulturtechnikforschung und Medienphilosophie (IKKM), the Birmingham Center for Media and Cultural Research, and ELICO Equipe de recherche de Lyon; The Examiner, ‘Sadia Gains A Sound View of Tasmania’ Jan. 2014; Artabase, 'Metamorphoses in 'A' Minor: Sadia Sadia in conversation with Amita Kirpalani', Sept. 2009; Contemporary Visual Arts and Culture, ’Proof’ March-May 2005; Herald Sun ‘Keeping Eyes on the Truth’, December 2004; 'Proof: The Act of Seeing With One’s Own Eyes', Stubbs, Mike (Editor). ACMI. Melbourne:Australia 2004; Herald Sun, ‘Melting Pot of Sound’, Oct. ‘96; The West Australian, ‘Tropical Heartbeat Meets Technology’, Sept. ’96; Opus, ‘Sadia: the Equa Project’, Oct.96; Rolling Stone (Aus), ‘Equa’, December 1996; Music Week, ‘In The Studio: TUC United Against Racism ‘RESPECT’ June 1996; 'She Bop: The Definitive History of Women in Rock, Pop, and Soul', O’Brien, Lucy, London:Penguin 1995, 2006; BBC Radio 1,‘The Glass Ceiling, TX November 1995; The MIX,‘Fiddling the Meter’, November 1994; Recording Musician,‘Production Lines’, August 1992; The Independent,‘Cutting Through Tape’, Oct.1991; BBC Radio 4, Women’s Hour, TX April 24, 1991; Audio Media, ‘The Female Touch’, February 1991; Studio Magazine,‘Frills and Spools’, Dec. 1990; Studio Sound, ‘Winning Women In The Industry’, November 1990.GreenForestRanger (talk) 21:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GreenForestRanger, that's too much for me to try to look up. All we need is two, maybe three articles that are more like (and I know this is not a great example, but I happened to be reading Salle's article on Janet Malcolm and this was the first profile I could think of) https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1994/07/11/forty-one-false-starts That's in-depth, significant coverage of a notable subject in an independent, reliable source. Can you name two? Vexations (talk) 22:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Vexations I'm usually interviewed to talk about my installation work in context although the Evelyn Tsitas interview above is a good one. So the arts references are either contained above or in the Talk Page's article references, with the exception of ‘A new era of recognition and voice has begun for QVMAG and the community’, The Sunday Examiner, August 29th 2021 which just opened and includes the permanent installation of my 'All Time and Space Fold Into the Infinite Present (Cataract Gorge)' in its three video channel, sixteen audio channel, forty-five foot iteration in Gallery Eight at Royal Park. There's more 'profile' material as a music producer esp the 'woman in a man's world'. I'm trying to remember which of these were good interviews. I'd say Recording Musician,‘Production Lines’, August 1992, is good; Music Week, ‘In The Studio: TUC United Against Racism ‘RESPECT’ June 1996 was a good profile of me at work on a big project in Metropolis Studio A (London)and is the major music industry pub in the UK; Audio Media, ‘The Female Touch’, February 1991; The Mix,‘Fiddling the Meter’, November 1994; Herald Sun, ‘Melting Pot of Sound’, October 1996 was a good interview around 'Equa'; as was The West Australian, ‘Tropical Heartbeat Meets Technology’, September 1996 (I did seventy-six interviews for the Equa (Polygram) project over a week in Melbourne and Sydney in 1996, I'm trying to remember which were the good profiles); there's The Independent,‘Cutting Through Tape’, Oct.1991 maybe. There's a lot of it but not The New Yorker :) It's nice that you're taking such an interest, if nothing else I shall go to sleep thinking that another person has been introduced to my work. À demain.GreenForestRanger (talk) 23:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To conclude my thought from last night, as you've jogged my memory: In 1996 I produced an album called 'Equa'[[45]] for Mercury Records (AUS) which was part of Polygram Australia and now Universal. The single off the album was 'Departure', which went into heavy rotation on Triple JJJ [[46]], the national Australian radio station and part of the ABC Australian Broadcasting Corporation. There was second single 'Samayah' did the same. I think that "11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network" is notability criteria for WP:MUSIC so there might be one to add there (along with 'has won or been nominated for a major award', see below). Polygram flew me from London to Sydney on the Sunday and for the duration of the next four and half days - three in Sydney and one and a half in Melbourne - I did on average seventeen interviews a day - one every half hour - mostly press. Started to lose my voice on the third day. So challenging because you really want to give every interviewer something real and from the heart. So there's a lot of press out there from Australian sources around Sadia and the Equa project but I don't include them because I can't access them.
Of course I went back to Melbourne in 2004 for the MIFF premiere of The Noon Gun and again in December when my single-channel work 'The Memory of Water (Part One)' was exhibited in 'Proof' and in rotation on a program loop on the external and internal screens at Federation Square, Melbourne, etc as discussed above.
I think that's about it. WP:MUSIC I would hope I pass for "gold album in at least one country" and now as well for "has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network"- also 'has won or been nominated for a major award' (Equa[[47]] - Cat# 1743842 ℗ 1996 Mercury Records Pty. Ltd. was ARIA [[48]][[49]] nominated in 1997 - I forgot and have now included it with the précis and links, below) - and WP:FILM, "selected preservation in a national museum" and/or "included in history of cinema programme." If you can access print - as we've discussed above - much press arose in the 1980's and 1990's - in Australian and UK newspapers and magazines - but I've not included print material I can't access but maybe somebody else can. I've included the digitised references I could find on the Talk Page. But I think it's going to have to be taken collectively as a body of work.
If there's anything else that you feel might be important I'm happy to do my best to answer you Vexations but I really do need to step away from this now. Thanks.GreenForestRanger (talk) 09:52, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
Notability WP:MUSIC ‘gold and platinum albums’
David Wilcox Catalogue
Gold Certified - My Eyes Keep Me in Trouble - September 16, 1987 (Capitol, merged into EMI)
Gold Certified - Breakfast at the Circus - July 5, 1988 (EMI)
Platinum Certified - Breakfast at the Circus - May 31, 1993 (EMI)
Gold Certified - Over Sixty Minutes With - July 24, 1991 (EMI)
Platinum Certified - Over Sixty Minutes With - May 31, 1993 (EMI)
Gold Certified - The Best of David Wilcox - April 22, 1987 (Capitol, merged into EMI)
Platinum Certified - The Best of David Wilcox - December 18, 1989 (Capitol, merged into EMI)
Source Music Canada [[50]]
Notability WP:MUSIC "has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network”
‘Departure’ and ’Samayah' from Equa[[51]] - Cat# 1743842 ℗ 1996 Mercury Records Pty. Ltd. (Formerly Polygram Australia now Universal) were in heavy rotation on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation national radio station Triple JJJ[[52]] in 1996.
Notability WP:MUSIC 'has won or been nominated for a major award'
Equa[[53]] - Cat# 1743842 ℗ 1996 Mercury Records Pty. Ltd. was ARIA [[54]][[55]] nominated in 1997. GreenForestRanger (talk) 16:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentHi GreenForestRanger, I know this can be a frustrating and confusing process. A few thoughts: based on your description above, I don't think you're likely to meet WP:NMUSIC, since it sounds like your activities were as a producer; see this discussion about producers. You may want to read WP:NARTISTS, in particular #4, which states "The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." If we have reliable, independent sources that identify your work by name as being within a permanent collection, that could be relevant. (For comparison, note that this is an example of a source that does not mention you or your work by name, but it is independent, by-lined, and published by a reliable source.) As with Vexations, I'll repeat the request for 2 (or 3) sources that directly address you and your work in depth (see WP:THREE). The most likely path towards keeping this article is to provide sourcing that indicates you meet WP:GNG. If you can identify two by-lined articles, published by non-local publishers, that are independent from you and your employers and are not primarily interviews, that would be the most useful evidence for resolving this discussion. Otherwise, I'd like to say that being "non-notable" in the eyes of Wikipedia is not an insult: the vast majority of authors, artists, academics, and people in general don't meet WP:GNG, and we can't WP:OVERCOME a lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Suriname0 (talk) 23:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Suriname0 Frustrating, yes! Partially because I have multiple times posted or included links to ACMI's own website and their internationally significant permanent collection - the collection metadata of which can be found here [[56]] including my name, exhibition history and ACMI Identifier (accession ID). This links directly to the museum's online permanent collection records. I don't like to assume so here is ACMI on Wikipedia [[57]] if you are unfamiliar with the institution.
My activities in WP:NMUSIC were not only as a producer but also as a co-writer on almost all of the 'gold and platinum albums' catalogue (linked above) - verified here from record company metadata [[58]] and as the artist (I am half of 'Equa' - goes to WP:MUSIC 'heavy rotation national radio' and 'won or been nominated for major award' as you will see under composer/lyricist here [[59]]). I can also send you the musicbrainz link with attribution codes if you like.
You'll find my work in this article including images ‘A new era of recognition and voice has begun for QVMAG and the community’, The Sunday Examiner, August 29th 2021 - apologies clearly I pointed at the wrong article for the permanent install in Gallery Eight [[60]] as discussed above; the work was acquired by QVMAG through the Ralph Turner Bequest in 2014 and the Accession Number is QVM:2014:FDV:0001 (you can see the gallery label for the accession details here [[61]] if you cannot find it online).
For two by-lined articles, published by non-local publishers, that are independent and are not primarily interviews I would direct you to: Herald Sun, ‘Melting Pot of Sound’, October 1996 (Australia); Herald Sun ‘Keeping Eyes on the Truth’, December 2004 (Australia); Contemporary Visual Arts and Culture, ’Proof’ March-May 2005 (the arts broadsheet); The West Australian, ‘Tropical Heartbeat Meets Technology’, September 1996; The Australian Arts Review (2019) [[62]] (the headline images are also mine); Sadia, S. “Ghosts of Noise” and “What is a Model Citizen?”, in The Model Citizen, edited by Sean Redmond and Darrin Verhagen. Melbourne: RMIT Gallery, 2019; and 'Hartley, John, Steve Kurtz, Mike Stubbs, and Clare Pentecost. Proof: The Act of Seeing With One’s Own Eyes. Melbourne: ACMI Australian Centre for the Moving Image, 2004'. There is also Music Week, ‘In The Studio: TUC United Against Racism ‘RESPECT’ June 1996 (the major music industry pub in the UK). Thank you for your interest. PS. please check out the updated article on the Talk Page [[63]] if you haven't already.

GreenForestRanger (talk) 01:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Suriname0 Please combine sources. "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" [[64]GreenForestRanger (talk) 23:33, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Suriname0 There is this article mentioning that her work was added to QVMAG's permanent collection: https://www.pressreader.com/australia/mercury-hobart-magazine/20210828/281668258064885 but WP:ARTISTS says represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, and this is just one. This seems to be a case where a person is just shy of notability in several different areas, which unfortunately doesn't add up to GNG. Her musical group Equa seems like it might qualify for its own article, however - maybe that could be a compromise? Niftysquirrel (talk) 14:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Niftysquirrel, I don't see anything in that article about Sadia or her work, but maybe I missed it? BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello BubbaJoe123456 and Niftysquirrel My work forms part of the permanent collection at ACMI [[65]] and the accession details are here [[66]]. It formed part of the major exhibition 'Proof: The Act of Seeing with One's Own Eyes' curated by Mike Stubbs. The QVMAG link should have been here ‘A new era of recognition and voice has begun for QVMAG and the community’, The Sunday Examiner, August 29th 2021. 'All Time and Space Fold Into the Infinite Present (Cataract Gorge)' (2014) was purchased with the Ralph Turner Bequest and permanently installed in Gallery Eight. The accession number is QVM:2014:FDV:0001 and can be found on the label copy here [[67]]. Please see the Talk Page [[68]] for the updated and corrected article.GreenForestRanger (talk) 23:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BubbaJoe123456 It's in the 11th paragraph. Niftysquirrel (talk) 00:15, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Niftysquirrel The 11th paragraph in the article you linked (Shaking Things Up) reads "And the gallery's other famous colonial artwork...". Are we talking about a different article here? BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 14:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BubbaJoe123456 sorry, I apparently lost the ability to count (I was really tired, I guess?): 23rd paragraph, it starts with "Those new stories include works by..." Niftysquirrel (talk) 15:05, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, found it! BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 15:26, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GreenForestRanger, I get that it mentions a work that you made, but it doesn't mention you. Half a sentence is not significant coverage: ..., and The Memory of Water, an enigmatic installation strategically placed at the exhibition entrance that features several pairs of eyes gazing at us in a series of close-ups Sorry Vexations (talk) 11:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Vexations The problem is that the archived version does not include the full spread image above the fold. I can't do anything about that unless you can find it. I have photos here but no scans.
I'm afraid that a photo would not make much of a difference. It's still just half a sentence. Vexations (talk) 12:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Vexations I'm sorry I have to step away from this again. You have music databases that go to me as an artist (Equa), songwriter, composer, lyricist and pioneering woman producer. My work forms part of the internationally significant permanent collection at ACMI - I have provided documentation of this multiple times - the most visited moving image museum in the world - (as well the recent acquisition and permanent install at QVMAG [[69]]) - and my films have been included in a history of cinema program at the most prestigious film institute in the world the Cinémathèque Française. I have provided documentation for all of this. I have press but I suspect the music press will more closely fit your requirements as published by non-local publishers, that are independent and are not primarily interviews - as it provides extensive coverage of my work as an artist(music) rather than an interviews with me as an individual. A selection is included in my reply to Suriname0 - and in the discussions above. There is little more that I can do! GreenForestRanger (talk) 12:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GreenForestRanger "my films have been included in a history of cinema program at the most prestigious film institute in the world the Cinémathèque Française" Could you point me to the sourcing for this? The citation in the article just provides a link to the Cinémathèque Française homepage. Thanks. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BubbaJoe123456 The link under the Cinémathèque link is the archived programme for the 'soirée exceptionelle' as part of the Cinéma d’Avant-Garde / Contre-Culture Générale. The film 'Lit From Within' is directed by me. I also directed 'San Francisco Redux No.1' (with Anthony Stern and SW Tayler). I contributed to three of the other films on programme as well (producer, editor, etc) but am only claiming the films I directed. The programme was curated by Nicole Brenez the noted film critic and curator for the experimental cinema programs at the Cinémathèque Française. (‘San Francisco Redux No.1’ went on to be screened at Lussas ‘États Généraux du Film Documentaire’. It was most recently exhibited as part of ‘Breaking Convention’ at the University of Greenwich in August 2019 [[70]]GreenForestRanger (talk) 23:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GreenForestRanger OK, now I've found the link, and updated the article.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BubbaJoe123456 Thank you for your assistance, it's much appreciated.GreenForestRanger (talk) 16:44, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think that GreenForestRanger has adequately produced evidence that her work meets criteria 4 of WP:NARTIST and given us the names of offline past publications toward meeting WP:SIGCOV. While more in-depth coverage that is easily viewable is desirable, I am willing to AGF in this case that information provided is accurate.4meter4 (talk) 19:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentBubbaJoe123456 ‘acquired by Australian Centre for the Moving Image’. I do not see how it is possible for this to fail verification - this is the museum’s own catalogue of its permanent collection https://www.acmi.net.au/works/109650--the-memory-of-water-part-1/ . I have provided this discussion multiple times with this link to the ACMI collection metadata which includes my name, display history and ACMI Identifier (accession ID). I do not know if you are a member of WP:VISUALARTS but it is not possible to provide a more primary source than the institutions' own catalogue. This links directly to the museum's online permanent collection records. Please revert.GreenForestRanger (talk) 07:58, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The link in the article is just to "www.acmi.net.edu", which is the ACMI homepage, and didn't provide support for the claim. The link you provided above does support the claim, so I've changed the citation, and removed that template
  • CommentBubbaJoe123456 'It featured in the exhibition 'Proof: The Act of Seeing With One's Own Eyes'. Here is the catalogue citation with the ISBN number. Sadia, S 'The Memory of Water (Part One)' (2004) appears on pp 92-93.Hartley, John, Steve Kurtz, Mike Stubbs, and Clare Pentecost. Proof: The Act of Seeing With One’s Own Eyes. Melbourne: ACMI Australian Centre for the Moving Image, 2004, pp 92-93 ISBN: 9781920805104. Please revert. GreenForestRanger (talk) 08:59, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the citations in the article didn't support the claim, that's why I tagged them as "failed verification". The neither the Artlink magazine article nor the ACMI link (checked the archived version) mention you or 'The Memory of Water'. I've added the catalog as a citation, and removed the other cites and the failed verification tag.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BubbaJoe123456 Thank you. I've noticed errors in the article - but I can't seem to access the source on the Talk Page article to correct it. I can delete everything or nothing - and edit the preface to the article but not the article itself - but deleting the whole thing would remove the COI. I don't know why it seems to be malfunctioning but it's been doing it for a while. So I can't fix it. I've tried to address some of the corrections here in the AfD discussion. It's frustrating. The material is out there but it's been a long time since I've looked at this. I also keep forgetting to include things (for example, I also produced The Fixx [[71]] Then and Now, etc. - I think they were much bigger in the US than in the UK. Anyway, I seem to recall that years ago IMDB used to be considered a reliable source. Apparently now it is frowned upon but the "use of IMDb as an external link is generally considered appropriate' [[72]]. I'm not quite sure what this means.GreenForestRanger (talk) 16:32, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GreenForestRanger IMDB generally isn't considered a reliable source, because the content there is heavily user-submitted, and there isn't much editor review. They also take stuff from sources like Wikipedia. The "use of IMDb as an external link is generally considered appropriate" comment refers to adding a link to an article subject's IMDb page in the external links section at the bottom, as I've done in the article.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Comment: If this article is going to be destructively edited ('failed verification' for permanent collection when primary source has been provided, for example) while the AfD is ongoing, AGF it should be edited or reverted constructively as well:
Please revert ‘She also co-wrote many of the titles on these albums’. Please see the Jaxsta catalogue drawn from record company metadata which contains fifty-seven co-writing credits for the David Wilcox catalogue alone. [[73]]
Please revert 12 Aug 2021 "The Sydney Dance Company has two works in their permanent repertoire, 'Unwitting Sight' (1998) and 'Cradle Song' (2001) choreographed by Wakako Asano" was simply an incorrect URL.It is corrected it here and links to the Sydney Dance Company’s archived permanent repertoire."From 1998 to 2007 the Sydney Dance Company under the direction of Graeme Murphy [[74]] held two works choreographed by Wakako Asano [[75]] as part of their permanent repertoire, Unwitting Sight (1998) and Cradle Song (2001) [[76]] with music by Sadia Sadia (Equa) [[77]]”
Please revert "Sadia began her career by becoming one of the first women in the world to be signed to a major label as a record producer" should read "During the 1990’s she sat as the only female member of the Directorate of REPRO (the British Record Producer’s Guild, now the MPG[[78]]). In Lucy O’Brien (1996) She Bop: The Definitive History of Women in Rock, Pop and Soul. Penguin. ISBN 978-0140251555 also in later editions pp. 449. ISBN 978-0-8264-3529-3.] and in press).
GreenForestRanger (talk) 10:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is a long list of press cited in the discussion above. Please combine sources. "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" [[79]]. The page does require updating, some of which I've tried to address on the Talk Page. I am always happy to discuss my work with friendly people (and would in fact greatly appreciate the assistance of a friendly admin from WP:MUSIC and WP:VISUALARTS for edits by the subject as per WP:BIO) but there are only so many hours in the day and right now it is difficult to AGF. Please review the substantial material provided in this AfD discussion as well as the article on the Talk Page [[80]] (for context if nothing else). Thanks.GreenForestRanger (talk) 10:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: the works in permanent collections at ACMI and QVMAG pass for notability, and are supported by the other refs. PamD 07:51, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Sources In among all the TLDNR, This is the British Council confirming that The Memory of Water is part of ACMI's permanent collection, and here QVMAG include All time and space ... in its choice of 13 images from their collection. PamD 15:05, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:NARTIST by work held by QVMAG and ACMI, taking part in exhibitions at RMIT Gallery, ACMI, contributions (concept, writer, producer) to Equa, an ARIA nominated album. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hi BubbaJoe123456 WP:VISUALARTS please find enclosed updated or corrected citations to improve the article. Thanks
    please remove unreliable source tags as applicable
    The citation for 'Ghosts of Noise' (para 4 under 'Installations', ref [20]) is here: [[81]] (Pg 45) The title pages and intro also confirm the participants.
    the citation for The End of the Party: Hyde Park 1969 (ref [6]) from The British Council Films is here (edited and produced as 'Chimera Arts' on the right hand side of the page) [[82]]
    the citation for Iggy The Eskimo Girl (ref [7])(edited and produced as 'Chimera Arts' on the right hand side of the page)[[83]] this might also bring depth [[84]]
    The The British Council Films citation for San Francisco Redux No.1 (ref [8]) is here [[85]] ((director, editor, sound design and producer as 'Chimera Arts' on the right hand side of the page
    I cannot find any sources for ' Lit From Within: The Film and Glass Works of Anthony Stern' ref [10]. It is a minor work. Please remove.
  • The British Council Films citations all include my studio address as Real World. Please revert "Sadia is based at Real World Studios [[86]][[87]][[88]] in Box, Wiltshire". (Real World is a major creative center with relevance to artistic practice - the British Council Films site cites this address on every entry and photographic evidence can be found here [[89]] by scrolling to '2013')
  • in the interests of fairness
    Please undelete the Sydney Dance Company ref which has now been corrected: "From 1998 to 2007 the Sydney Dance Company under the direction of Graeme Murphy [[90]] held two works choreographed by Wakako Asano [[91]] as part of their permanent repertoire, Unwitting Sight (1998) and Cradle Song (2001) [[92]] with music by Sadia Sadia (Equa) [[93]]”
    Please add In 2019 'Ghosts of Noise' [[94]][[95]] was exhibited as a four-channel video and eight channel audio installation in 'The Model Citizen’ [[96]][[97]] at the RMIT Gallery [[98]], Melbourne, curated by Sean Redmond and Darrin Verhagen [[99]].
    Please undelete "Sadia began her career by becoming one of the first women in the world to be signed to a major label as a record producer" which has been updated "During the 1990’s she sat as the only female member of the Directorate of REPRO (the British Record Producer’s Guild, now the MPG[[100]]). In Lucy O’Brien (1996) She Bop: The Definitive History of Women in Rock, Pop and Soul. Penguin. ISBN 978-0140251555 also in later editions pp. 449. ISBN 978-0-8264-3529-3, as well as in press. (this goes to the history of women in record production)

Please let me know if any of these fail verification. I will post more as soon as I can.GreenForestRanger (talk) 13:17, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment WP:VISUALARTS I have also updated and corrected this entry:
    "In 2009 Sadia was awarded a Studio 18 [[101]] artists' residency at Gertrude Contemporary [[102]], Melbourne, for international "contemporary visual artists pursuing an innovative practice in a professional capacity”. During this time she produced her three channel work ‘Metamorphoses in ‘A’ Minor’ [[103]][[104]] with the support of the British Council (Aus) and Kennedy, Miller, Mitchell [[105]] at their motion capture stage at Sydney Gate, Sydney, Australia. It most recently screened at Sarah Lawrence 3rd Annual Dancefilm Festival at the Heimbold Visual Arts Center [[106]] in 2018."
    GreenForestRanger (talk) 13:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete due to lack of significant coverage failing to meet WP:NFILM and WP:GNG Seddon talk 23:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2 Sisters (2010 film)

[edit]
2 Sisters (2010 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. ----Rdp060707|talk 10:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ----Rdp060707|talk 10:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. ----Rdp060707|talk 10:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for notifying me. On basis of the strength of Javan Online and JJO, which look like reputable sites offering their own independent analysis of the film, I am happy to change my vote to keep per GNG/NFILM. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What makes Seemorgh a reliable source? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:58, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Passes WP:NFILM.JeepersClub (talk) 07:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)Blocked sock. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seddon talk 23:05, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Tantillo

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

Doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG notability. Even with a WP:BEFORE, coverage of him is either non-independent, or non-substantial (passing mentions).

For some additional background/context: This was originally soft-deleted in a previous AFD I opened in November 2020, and was requested for undeletion in December 2020 by a user stating they would "add verifiable sources" and "readdress any concerns". Since nothing in the article's body has been changed (and since the undeletion request only pointed out the existence of sources that are either non-independent or unsubstantial), I'm opening this for discussion again. Whisperjanes (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seddon talk 23:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:58, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Hope Line

[edit]
The Hope Line (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced for 9 years and apparently non-notable. My own searching finds some passing mentions and directory listings, but nothing that meets WP:SIRS. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 18:09, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 18:09, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Update: we already have Francisco Garmendia, this could be merged into that, with a redirect. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:47, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added a number of citations. I found it's legal name which produced a number of solid sources. The Hope Line sounds like a good organization, to be honest. I believe it is notable. --Wil540 art (talk) 21:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many of those are sources I found when I did my search and dismissed as not meeting WP:SIRS. The NY Times article is pretty good (even if it's more about James P. Broderick than about The Hope Line), but that's the best of the bunch. One of the refs is just a link to a photo??? The BronxNet ref is a classic passing reference; it just mentions The Hope Line in a list of agencies. I don't have access to Disaster Psychiatry so can't say anything about that. The Bishop Garmendia reference is a page on the founder's own website, so not independent. The Bronx Free Press story is questionable. As far as I can tell, this is a blog post, so probably not a WP:RS. The nonprofitlight.com ref is a directory listing ("Data for this page was sourced from XML published by IRS (public 990 form dataset"). And catholiccharitiesny.org is the parent organization, so again not independent. With a couple more sources like the NY Times article, I'd be happy keeping this. As it is, it's pretty marginal. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You make good points. I added a couple more sources. --Wil540 art (talk) 23:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, my comment about the sources not meeting SIRS does not apply to the NY Times source. That's one that I didn't find myself, and I do thank you for locating it. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that additional sources have been added to the article since nomination and should be evaluated
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seddon talk 23:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources in the article or in searches. Coverage that is significant is either not reliable or not independent and vice-versa. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Garmendia was formally recognized and honored by the United States Congress in 1997 for his work with The Hope Line. I added the congressional record to the article's sources. That and The New York Times piece indicates some substantial RS.4meter4 (talk) 20:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you're exaggerating the significance of this. The appropriate section of the Congressional Record for that day is [107]. Garmendia's congressman read the tribute on the floor. There was no vote or anything formal like that; just a routine reading of something into the record by a member. Probably to a chamber that was empty except for the clerks. These things are routine and are done as a service and a courtesy to constituents. That same day, a volunteer arts organization was recognized for their 45th anniversary, a junior high school social studies teacher was recognized for having won a fellowship, a member read into the record their monthly newsletter on foreign affairs, and the 50th anniversary of George C. Marshall's commencement address at Harvard was noted. In any case, this is WP:PRIMARY, and makes only a passing reference to the subject of this article. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
RoySmith Thanks for clarifying this through a better contextual lens. I found it through my university library in a segmented portion and I didn't realize that this kind of thing was not unusual. Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 00:50, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

British Association for International & Comparative Education

[edit]
British Association for International & Comparative Education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet GNG. – DarkGlow • 21:57, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 21:57, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 21:57, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:09, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:55, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seddon talk 22:59, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chua Chwee Koh

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Chua Chwee Koh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:SIGCOV. SIM, MINDEF, Certis sources are primary sources (2 press releases, and a organisation chart). Birmingham U source is basically a resume attached onto an event page. – robertsky (talk) 16:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. – robertsky (talk) 16:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. – robertsky (talk) 16:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seddon talk 22:58, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lack of significant coverage in independent secondary sources shows that the subject isn't notable enough. There are a couple of sources that mention his name ([108], [109]) but he's merely quoted as speaking on behalf of Certis. Despite his position, his name isn't even mentioned at Certis Group, so redirecting isn't an option here. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 12:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cal Langley

[edit]
Cal Langley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"Biography" of a television character, written entirely in-universe and not making or reliably sourcing any context for why he would be independently notable as a separate topic from the show. As always, Wikipedia is not a fansite on which we keep standalone articles about every individual character in every TV show; we need external analysis of his significance and cultural impact in real media, not just in-show plot details, to make him notable enough for his own article. Bearcat (talk) 22:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Youth Against Racism

[edit]
Youth Against Racism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It exists, but I couldn't establish that it has the coverage or significance to meet WP:N. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully, we can resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 21:06, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:24, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:25, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
except that none of those sources helps demonstrate notability under WP:NCORP. If that’s all there is, the topic isn’t notable. Mccapra (talk) 10:22, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:53, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shafiq Mureed

[edit]
Shafiq Mureed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP is still unsourced, and the user who requested for this article to be restored didn't fix the problems. A Google search looks to me that this person is not notable yet. pandakekok9 (talk) 14:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:29, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:38, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:54, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AKM Nazir Ahmed

[edit]
AKM Nazir Ahmed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Keep The person in question (now deceased) was a top official of Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami, which participated as a legal political party in all Bangladesh elections until 2013. The political party to which the personality in question belongs to has won multiple seats in consecutive national elections as Members of Parliament, unlike other Islamic parties in Bangladesh. Notable as per WP:GNG since subject has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources such as Daily Star that are independent of the subject.--~Mohammad Hossain~ 10:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, Mohammad Hossain is the creator of this article. - Owais Talk 14:03, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Aranya (talk) 14:33, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Aranya (talk) 14:33, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Soft Computing in Civil Engineering

[edit]
Journal of Soft Computing in Civil Engineering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was PRODded before (frankly for an invalid reason), so here we are. The article claims (and this is backed up by MIAR) that the journal is included in Scopus. However, searching "Scopus Preview" for the ISSN or journal title shows that this is incorrect. It also proudly proclaimed to be "supported by Publons" (I deleted that particular gem). Even if true (I didn't check), Publons also "supports" OMICS journals, so this is not directly a glowing recommendation. Other indexing services listed were completely routine (GScholar, DOAJ, etc). In conclusion, this is a non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: delete. Changing my !vote to keep, based on Headbomb's findings below: indexing in Scopus meets NJournals. Randykitty (talk) 21:46, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 21:46, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I did check that Excel file, but looked for "journal etc", not realizing that Scopus would have it under a different title. So what is the correct title, do we need to move the article? I'll change my nom to a "keep" !vote, but as there is a "delete" !vote I cannot withdraw. WaddlesJP13, if you'd like to change your !vote in the might of Headbomb's findings, we can close this AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 09:30, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well the cover has "Soft Computing in Civil Engineering". But the website, ISSN, and inside of the journal (i.e. [110]) have "Journal of Soft Computing in Civil Engineering". And the domain is jsoftcivil.com So my guess is Journal of Soft Computing in Civil Engineering is the actual name of the journal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually SCOPUS also has Journal of ..., I was too hasty in my comment above. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:41, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sheila Steele

[edit]
Sheila Steele (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Biography of an activist, not reliably sourced as the subject of sufficient reliable source coverage in media to clear our notability criteria for activists. The primary notability claims here are that she maintained a website, and that she was "involved" in unspecified ways in somebody else's legal complaint -- except that the website was the involvement, and the somebody else was her business partner in the website, so that isn't actually a distinct notability claim from the website. But launching a website isn't an "inherent" notability freebie in and of itself, and the sourcing isn't adequate to make her more notable than the norm for launchers of websites: there are just three footnotes here, of which one is the website metaverifying its own existence, one is her obituary in her local hometown newspaper and one is a (deadlinked but waybackable) media hit which briefly mentions Sheila Steele's name in a timeline of her business partner's legal fight, which is not substantively enough about Sheila Steele to claim that she would pass WP:GNG on that basis alone.
And even on a ProQuest search I'm not finding enough improved coverage to turn the tide: I get hits which mention her name in the process of being about the website or unrelated and not-notability-building stuff about her son contracting necrotizing fasciitis, the obituary that's already been cited here, and completely coincidental text matches for different Sheila Steeles, with virtually nothing that's substantively about Sheila Steele as a subject for the purposes of establishing her notability. Bearcat (talk) 21:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saskatchewan-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 21:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Parallel cocks

[edit]
Parallel cocks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources don't reflect the article's contents. Reads like original research. Citing (talk) 21:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Citing (talk) 21:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Citing (talk) 21:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It could fit in as a section in that article, though I have no idea how common this search term would be. I'm not sure if this is a translation issue. The other thing is the sources don't mention cocks or roosters or this motif at all, save for an image or two.Citing (talk) 17:26, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I don't think a redirect would work, because it is a very implausible search term, and it would point to an article that doesn't mention it. Perhaps we can encourage the creator to find better sources, and then add a section on use of the motif in Russian folk art to Confronted animals and delete this article. Vexations (talk) 17:43, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A couple of birds facing each other is a common motif in Russian and more eastern folklore. Roosters are just one example, maybe not even the most typical. Something like confronted birds could be a better term. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 15:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. In looking at the sources, the nominator is correct that none of the three sources verify the content in the article. The first two sources are how too embroidery guides, that while instructing one on how to stitch confronting birds, provide no actual historical evidence or assertions of their use in Russian culture. The last source also does not verify the content and is about mythological half bird half women and other Russian folk stories. While I don't doubt that confronting birds appears in Russian culture, I know that many other cultures globally have also used this motif and its not unique to Russian culture. I would have suggested a merge to Confronted animals, but without reliable sources there is nothing to merge. Likewise a redirect is not really appropriate because this isn't a typical English language expression of this concept and is an unlikely search term.4meter4 (talk) 22:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fenix down (talk) 21:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Martial Bedi Esmel

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Martial Bedi Esmel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was kept at the previous AfD due to a now-deprecated older version of WP:NFOOTBALL, which permitted anyone that played in the CAF Champions League, even if it was one game between semi-pro teams, to have an article. The reference is now dead but he apparently made an appearance in a game between Séwé FC and Mighty Barrolle, both of whom play in leagues listed as not fully professional at WP:FPL, therefore he does not actually meet NFOOTBALL, which requires him to play in a game between two clubs playing in an FPL league.

I have investigated whether he played a game for FC Gloria Buzău and concluded that he didn't because his name does not appear at Statistics Football, a reliable website which exhaustively lists all players that played in the top 3 divisions of Romania for the last 70 years. He also doesn't have a Soccerway page. In fact, all I can find is an empty Transfermarkt profile.

Thirdly, I could find absolutely nothing other than the painfully brief and insufficient transfer announcements already cited meaning that Esmel comprehensively fails WP:GNG, which supersedes NFOOTBALL anyway. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:45, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Restored following DRV discussion. Nominator removed most of the article's content before nominating it for deletion, and has since been blocked as a sockpuppet. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pitobash Tripathy

[edit]
Pitobash Tripathy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The actor has long career but didn't act in any notable film in a significant role yet. Fails to qualify as a notable actor following Wikipedia:ENTERTAINER. Dixiku (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dixiku (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Geschichte (talk) 16:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sai Teja

[edit]
Sai Teja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very hard to find any reference for him. Does not meet notability criteria. The article is live since 2017. Prodded multiple times and was contested every single time. Time for an AFD. Dixiku (talk) 20:05, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dixiku (talk) 20:05, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:13, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:13, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Geschichte (talk) 16:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Lector

[edit]
DJ Lector (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable musician failing WP:NMUSIC. Sources appear to be self-published and a BEFORE search doesn’t provide anything. Xclusivzik (talk) 20:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and salt. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:51, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shama Hyder

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

May be she's notable. But it was deleted first on 5 April 2018 as advert. On 2nd june 2018, it was deleted via AFD. The present article was then created by Cabomba 789 on 29th July 2018 under title Shama Hyder Kabani to bypass scrutiny and was successful. Perhaps another deletion discussion would be the right decision. Dixiku (talk) 19:57, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dixiku (talk) 19:57, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Lego The Powerpuff Girls

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nomination withdrawn because the article has been improved. (non-admin closure) Sahaib3005 (talk) 06:31, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Lego The Powerpuff Girls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I tried PRODing the article but it was removed. In my proposed deletion of the article I wrote "Only sources are Lego blogs. Is a non notable Lego theme (only a couple of sets). It should be deleted or merged to another page." Adding to my previous points: There has only been two Lego Powerpuff Girls sets: 41287 Bubbles' Playground Showdown and 41288 Mojo Jojo Strikes (Source). The Lego Dimensions sets do not count towards the theme (71343 The Powerpuff Girls Buttercup Fun Pack and 71346 The Powerpuff Girls Team Pack) because they are not part of the theme.Sahaib3005 (talk) 19:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC) Brick Fanatics, BrickEconomy, thebrickfan.com, Brickset, Brickfanz, ToyNews, etc are all blog sites and should be removed. www.lego.com and warnerbros are primary sources. The only good source I can see is the Variety source [111] but it does not even mention Powerpuff girls. Sahaib3005 (talk) 19:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC) I’m surprised this article has not been deleted sooner, probably because it has been WP:REFBOMBED. Sahaib3005 (talk) 20:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Craig (musician)

[edit]
John Craig (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to satisfy WP:NMUSICIAN. Been in CAT:NN for almost 12 years, so let's resolve this. – DarkGlow • 19:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hold Your Horse Is (band)

[edit]
Hold Your Horse Is (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"It also coincided with a double page spreads in national publications Front and Guitar and Bass Magazine as well as a UK tour with Northern Irish band Mojo Fury" sounds like a great case for NMUSIC/GNG, except it's unsourced and unsourceable. PROD declined for a reason that isn't clear @Violarulez and NemesisAT:, and a BEFORE indicates no evidence that this was a notable band. AfD isn't cleanup, but text like "2010 saw them sign to Big Scary Monsters Recording Company, which concluded with the release of the six-track EP Rammin' It Home in August" has me fairly sure this was a copyvio from a prior version of their website or some other source since offline. Star Mississippi 19:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 19:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 19:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cabos

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

Does not satisfy WP:NPRODUCT. Been in CAT:NN for almost 12 years, so let's resolve this. – DarkGlow • 19:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (withdrawn). (non-admin closure) – DarkGlow • 22:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Josef Berger (scientist)

[edit]
Josef Berger (scientist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to satisfy WP:NACADEMIC/WP:NAUTHOR. Been in CAT:NN for almost 12 years, so let's resolve this. – DarkGlow • 19:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Google scholar shows five publications with over 100 citations each, making a weak case for WP:PROF#C1, and as editor-in-chief of a bluelinked journal he has a stronger case for #C8. The superficial nomination statement (not even addressing the editorship although it is one of the explicit criteria in WP:PROF, and yet claiming to have evaluated the subject as not passing WP:PROF) creates the appearance that the nominator is just blindly nominating articles with old notability tags rather than making an effort to resolve them more directly. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:58, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I used Google as my basis for the nomination; forgive me for not knowing Google Scholar is the more appropriate search tool for deeming notability for academics. I don't "blindly" nominate for AfD. – DarkGlow • 20:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is clear. The nominator ought to withdraw this AfD and reconsider their other prods and AfDs. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Odeneho Oppong

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Prince Odeneho Oppong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is still WP:TOOSOON has not held elected political office yet. GNG has not been established since last AfD discussion closed in March 2021 in my opinion JW 1961 Talk 19:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. JW 1961 Talk 19:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. JW 1961 Talk 19:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. JW 1961 Talk 20:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Al Ekhwa

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

Does not satisfy WP:NBAND. Been in CAT:NN for almost 12 years, so let's resolve this. – DarkGlow • 19:26, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:26, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:26, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:26, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bahrain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fluke discography as an WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 23:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Bells (Fluke song)

[edit]
The Bells (Fluke song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NSONG or WP:GNG. Possible ATD is redirect to artist. Boleyn (talk) 19:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 On Golden Pond (1981 film)#Production. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thayer IV

[edit]
Thayer IV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Coverage is very niche, I don't see that it meets WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 19:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tigerspring

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

Very promotional and has been in CAT:NN for 12 years. I couldn't establish that they meet WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:15, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:15, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:15, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:15, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fenix down (talk) 20:10, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SvenskaFans.com

[edit]
SvenskaFans.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It exists, but I'm not seeing the significance or coverage to meet WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 18:58, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:32, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A View for Freedom

[edit]
A View for Freedom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Possible ATD is redirect to Alfie Roberts Institute. I would disagree with this as it's a potentially ambiguous title. Doesn't meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:13, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 18:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 22:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

George Watters (soldier)

[edit]
George Watters (soldier) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years now. Boleyn (talk) 18:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You were the one arguing that every run of the mill Ace was notable regardless of sources. If you didn't write it, your first response to anything on WP is to delete it. Jamesallain85 (talk) 23:03, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing "run of the mill" about being an ace. There are fewer aces that there are Brigadistas. No my first response is not to delete, it is to look at the sources and see if they establish notability, which in this case they don't. My pages are always reliably sourced from the moment I create them, something you and other users would do well to follow. Mztourist (talk) 03:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are more than 1000 British aces from World War I alone. If you count all of the aces for each country that is an automatic pass for notability for thousands upon thousands of people. Which is fine in my opinion, what bothers me is that you set a double standard for other articles such as this one, which has multiple sources and significant coverage. However, he has more significant coverage and is more notable than many of the aces which get an automatic pass. You are correct, being a Brigadista in itself isn't notable. However, he is one of the few Brigadistas that as provided insight to the Spanish Civil War and is often referenced when Brigadistas are discussed, which is notable. It's almost like you have a bias against everything you didn't have a hand in creating, and you haven't always reliably resourced your pages. That was the issue I had with John B. Selby, it was started with a single source but you sternly fought to keep it. I had an easier time finding coverage for George Watters than I did Selby. Jamesallain85 (talk) 20:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of those aces each has a page, because they meet WP:BASIC. Whereas for this guy we have a dearth of sources. I don't know if Scottish newspapers are short of stories, but there was practically nothing written about him previously and he certainly is not "often referenced when Brigadistas are discussed". There are numerous books about the Spanish Civil War, if he was "often referenced" then he would feature in some of them. The only bias I have is against pages that don't meet BASIC. Your Selby and Jacobson nominations were simple REVENGE. Mztourist (talk) 03:13, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm yes, why would major Scottish papers write about Scots? Especially after the publication of a book about Scottish contributions to the world stage? Or the announcement of a Scottish play about the contributions of Scots to the world stage? Especially about a time when fascism by major global players in Europe was on the rise, but what relevance would that have today? Truly baffling CiphriusKane (talk) 02:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing contemporary was written about him, a few Scottish newspapers recently writing about a "local hero" doesn't establish notability. Mztourist (talk) 02:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If I may ask, why nae? Is he only considered notable if English papers write about him then? Because the repeat attempts to dismiss the sources for being Scottish sure feels like that CiphriusKane (talk) 03:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing pro-English or anti-Scottish about it. I oppose all these pages based on a few recent nostalgic stories about "locals heros" in the local newspapers as a basis for notability. If he was truly notable there would be contemporary sourcing or significant coverage in books. Mztourist (talk) 05:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Except ye're calling Dundee and Glasgow local to Prestonpans, and have repeatedly claimed the sources are irrelevant for being Scottish. This indicates either an ignorance of Scottish geography or a disregard for Scottish sources. The East Lothian Courier is local. The Deeside Piper is local. Calling the Herald (based in Glasgow, nae East Lothian or Edinburgh) and the Sunday Post (based in Dundee, nae East Lothian or Edinburgh) "local" frankly seems like ignorance at best, and an attempt to diminish or disregard Scots sources at worst CiphriusKane (talk) 06:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By "local" I meant of interest in parts of Scotland only. I have no interest in the microanalysis of Scotland or its newspapers. You seem determined to take offense or call racism and I'm not interested in that either Mztourist (talk) 07:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, I'm questioning why ye seem determined to diminish/dismiss the sources for being "Scottish papers" and claiming that there is zero reason to be interested in him, even though in 2019 he was the subject of a play. Let me repeat that, he was the subject of a play which was reviewed by the likes of The Guardian and The Times, and which was performed in the New Diorama Theatre in London and Traverse Theatre in Edinburgh. The play was performed as far away as Inverness and Wick (which is on the opposite end of Scotland from Prestonpans). So, with all due respect, yer claims about "local heroes", "slow news days" and "of interest in parts of Scotland only" is frankly horseshite CiphriusKane (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have explained already that those stories in minor papers of a local hero don't meet BASIC. In relation to the play we have no way of determining how much is factual and how much is artistic license. The Guardian and Times reviews are RS for the play (if it has a page), not for him other than to say that a character based on him was featured in a play. And saying "with all due respect" before calling my comments "horseshite" doesn't mean its not a personal attack. Mztourist (talk) 17:20, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And here we go again with the factually incorrect arguments. The Herald is the world's oldest national daily, and the Sunday Post once had the highest per capita readership penetration paper in the world. They are only "local" and "minor" if ye consider Scotland to be a community council. Also I didna claim that the play reviews lended notability to Watters, just that yer repeated argument that Scotland should be ignoring Watters is fallacious. So tell me, seeing as Scotland's oldest national daily and one of Scotland's largest Sundays are considered to be too "minor", what would a suitable RS look like? Because based on yer arguments, anything Scotland produces is incapable of determining notability CiphriusKane (talk) 02:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I said I have no interest in the microanalysis of Scotland or its newspapers, the fact that the Herald is the world's oldest national daily and the Sunday Post once having the highest per capita readership are both incredibly granular claims of their importance and irrelevant. Both stories were written as a result of the play, not due to Watters actually being contemporarily notable. We have too many of these pages about non-notable, long-dead people being given some minor exposure then a handful of newspaper articles are written about them and then suddenly they're deemed notable Mztourist (talk) 03:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I look forward to the time when we have more articles on notable people and I see no reason to place some block on those about volunteers in the Spanish Civil War. Are there particular biographies that should be excluded? The present article is weakly referenced. The book referred to Gray, Daniel (2013). Homage to Caledonia: Scotland and the Spanish Civil War. Luath Press Limited. ISBN 978-1-909912-12-0. refers to Watters on 11 pages. In addition to the references suggested by Curbon7, an article in the National[115] refers to a book Voices of the Spanish Civil War, edited by Ian MacDougall, but I haven't been able to track this down. In this case I wonder whether it might be better to have an article 549: Scots of the Spanish Civil War and cover the main participants in this way. Clearly, more work needs to be done here. Thincat (talk) 09:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We already have numerous articles on people who are actually notable. What we have here is an article about a nobody who's only claim to fame was being part of a notable organisation. The sources provided by Curbon7 are mentions in two Scottish newspapers, while grahamstevenson.me.uk doesn't appear to be a reliable source. Mztourist (talk) 10:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Two nationwide Scottish papers and a local Scottish paper, all of which are several paragraphs of biography. I've removed the Stevenson source as it looks like a WordPress blog CiphriusKane (talk) CiphriusKane (talk) 12:21, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, it is WP:SPS, his wikipage says that he's a historian, but I don't see anything to support that. What books has he written? He seems to have co-authored one book. So does that make him an expert? Mztourist (talk) 02:59, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Is in numerous newspaper articles and even had is accounts recorded in Voices from the Spanish Civil War. Jamesallain85 (talk) 23:03, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do hope those voting keep will put some effort into improving the article. Just saying...Intothatdarkness 01:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've incorporated the two additional sources found by Curbon7 into the article and rewritten it to remove all the quotes. There's probably some newspaper articles out there given Watters's political activism, but given how it happened in pre-internet times they're probably nae online CiphriusKane (talk) 12:09, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He's an important figure in the context of Scotland's recent history. I'm a descendant. I've got a copy of the book mentioned by Thincat, which has several pages devoted to George Watters, including an anecdote about his arrest for disrupting the infamous William (lord HawHaw) Joyce rally at the Usher Hall in Edinburgh. I'll dig it out and add to the article to expand it beyond GW's service in the International Brigades. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gusset (talk • contribs)
  • Keep - Subject of a play that had reviews in The Times, the Guardian and The Scotsman, as well as being mentioned in at least three books about Scots in the Spanish Civil War. Claims that Watters is relevant to only a part of Scotland despite being mentioned in national level newspapers are quite questionable CiphriusKane (talk) 16:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think there has clearly been enough coverage in the media in recent years, combined with play mentioned above, to show notability. Dunarc (talk) 22:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The play may be notable and worthy of a page, but he clearly isn't as there was minimal contemporary information about him. Mztourist (talk) 04:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, but the amount of contemporary coverage could be countered with the argument that there are plenty of examples of people whose works/actions only really attracted attention long after their achievements. However, I would note that the British Newspaper Archive would seem to point to his disruption of the Mosley meeting in 1936 and subsequent court case being reported in newspapers across Scotland, and even one in Northern Ireland. That said perhaps if deletion is decided upon then some of the material about his life could go in an article about the play? Dunarc (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Grace Whitson

[edit]
Stephanie Grace Whitson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has some coverage, but doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully, we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 18:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Whitty

[edit]
Paul Whitty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has had success, but doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years. Boleyn (talk) 18:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.
Related discussions: 2011-06 James Lentini (closed as no consensus)
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. My university music library contains scores and recordings of some of his music. Additionally, his works are discussed in some academic music journals. For example, his piece Vertigo is one of the pieces examined in Chapman, Jane (2001). "Notes inégales in contemporary music?" Contemporary Music Review, 20(1), pages 59-69 which is a scholarly work on employing baroque harpsichord techniques within contemporary classical works. His 2004 work with Anna Best, Vauxhall Pleasure, is analyzed and discussed in detail on pages 83 and 84 of Judith Rugg (2010). Exploring Site-specific Art: Issues of Space and Internationalism. Bloomsbury Academic. ISBN 9781848850644.. Here is a review in Gramophone of his music; although brief. His music is also discussed in Julio d'Escrivan (2017). The Cambridge Companion to Electronic Music. Cambridge University Press. p. 243. ISBN 9781108547376. And that's just with a cursory 10 minute search in my university search engine. There's likely concert reviews in newspapers as his works have premiered with some major ensembles.4meter4 (talk) 00:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Judy Susman

[edit]
Judy Susman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 David S. Garnett. Any usable content can be merged from there. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:50, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stargonauts

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

Possible WP:ATDs is redirect to David S. Garnett, not that I'm convinced he is notable. This doesn't appear to meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:41, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Metamorphosis (manga)

[edit]
Metamorphosis (manga) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability of the subject cannot be proven through proper reliable sources. Although it undoubtedly has “meme notability” for the sake of websites like Know Your Meme, this is not enough reliable notability to demonstrate that it belongs on Wikipedia. Even if notability could be proven (which a look into potential sources leads me to believe it can’t), the abysmal sourcing and non-relevant content makes it a case of WP:TNT Paragon Deku (talk) 16:59, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Paragon Deku (talk) 17:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The WP:TNT rationale doesn't hold up - the article isn't perfect but in no way is it unsalvageably bad to the point of requiring deletion (I'm not really seeing significant problems with the content itself - sourcing could be better but it's really not that bad). manga-news.com looks potentially reliable - though I can't really assess the source at a deeper level as I don't understand French. Same situation with kaorinusantara.or.id in Indonesian. Finally, though this isn't cited in the article, the manga was also reviewed by notable YouTuber Akidearest: [118]. WP:NBOOK requires The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. I think this manga does meet that criteria, and therefore is notable. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really think a review by a (semi-popular) youtuber really counts towards proving the notability of a novel. There are several notable youtubers who have made references to pornographic novels that don't have their own pages. Something being a popular meme in a niche group doesn't immediately make it article worthy. As for sources, I'll provide a detailed breakdown on the issues with them in chronological order.
  • A blog by an Italian /b/ user that hasn't been active in months and has no provable notability
  • The book itself for publisher information
  • A forum for a retailer that sells the book
  • A Know Your Meme page
  • A review in a modestly notable manga website from France (practically the only good source here as you mentioned)
  • An article about a spinoff from an indonesian website (only mentions the article subject to provide context)
  • An imgur link of a scanlation
  • The website that sells the book
  • The book itself (again)
  • A youtube video (sponsored by the company that sells the book)
Besides the fact that there's only one evident reliable source, the article itself has basically nothing besides a sprawling plot synopsis and brief notes that act like a sales pitch more than encyclopedic content. If you took out all the information that comes from Know Your Meme in particular it would have literally nothing but a plot and author notes, hence my TNT comment. Paragon Deku (talk) 22:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's... not a good TNT rationale. What else would you expect the article to contain? I fail to see how this is a sales pitch - it's written neutrally. The reception section is, well, accurate to what sources report.
    As for the YouTuber... I think it's reasonable to consider a YouTuber whose job is reviewing manga to be a subject-matter expert, and therefore admissible as a reliable source. That leaves at least three sources that are somewhat reliable providing coverage of this subject - enough to meet WP:NBOOK. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:21, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm the creator and principal contributor to this article, and... yeah I really get what OP is getting at. I realize the sources assembled aren't very RS, despite my best efforts to document this niche-famous masterpiece. All I can say is WP:ILIKEIT and WP:PLEASEDONT, but nothing that's not already a shortcut to WP:ATAIDD. I'll just observe and hope for the best. Gaioa (T C L) 21:51, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I agree with Paragon Deku's source analysis and I also have many serious concerns about this article's sourcing (images of scanlations or other copyright-violating should never be linked to per WP:ELNEVER, and a reference to a scanlation website is in the lead), but in addition to the Manga News review, I also found reviews from Manga Sanctuary and Planete BD, both of which are considered reliable at WP:ANIME/RS in the section for French websites. The other sources in this article are primary or completely unreliable however. As for the YouTuber review, I personally do not believe that counts to WP:GNG as I do not consider many YouTubers to be subject matter experts. Link20XX (talk) 22:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Add those new reviews as sources then. 2603:7000:1F00:6B91:D8CB:6C50:CCD8:FDD3 (talk) 02:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would, but Gaioa already did. Link20XX (talk) 15:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the sources are problematic; such as the publisher of the book, retailers, and the book itself. The book itself is a primary source, and the publisher and retailers make money off of sales of the book which makes them not independent. Blogs and other personal websites and social media platforms are entirely self published and lack editorial oversight from which we are able to prove both independence and reliability. The only source for which we can prove independence and reliability is the French language magazine review because it is not self published and it is independent from any financial conflict of interest. Best.4meter4 (talk) 15:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All of the websites of the reviews I linked (Manga News, Manga Sanctuary, and Planete BD) are considered reliable as per WP:ANIME/RS. You can see the discussion as to why they were added here. While I do not disagree about primary sources, or the state of the article, I fail to see why you discount these reliable sources. Three reviews in reliable and independent sources (which you have yet to answer my question as to why these reviews are primary sources) meet WP:NBOOK #1. Link20XX (talk) 15:32, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I'll go with the consensus of the project over some of the other websites. Changing to Weak keep based on those sources.4meter4 (talk) 15:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khash Zamin

[edit]
Khash Zamin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage from WP:RS, no significant review or anything. Source 1 is an interview (primary), Source 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 aren't WP:RS or significant coverage. Not enough in-depth sourcing to meet either WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:28, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:35, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:35, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

C. M. Taylor

[edit]
C. M. Taylor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article, with content written by two SPAs. Scanty evidence of notability; it's mostly a WP:REFBOMB of trivial and primary sources, and nothing up to the standards of WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE shows a few news mentions of other people of the same name, and nothing I could find about this C. M. Taylor. Definitely not enough independent third-party RS biographical coverage for a WP:BLP. David Gerard (talk) 10:12, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 10:12, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 10:12, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 11:44, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I get that he hasn't won the Booker Prize or been the subject of someone's dissertation, but it wouldn't take long to find plenty of Wikipedia pages about more obscure people than this. Is the point that more of the info in the article needs to be corroborated through online sources?

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closing and renaming per discussion. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 23:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Canadophile

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

Nominating this page per RfD outcome. Pinging participants who may want to join this discussion. User:JalenFolf, User:PEIsquirrel. CycloneYoris talk! 00:17, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. CycloneYoris talk! 00:17, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. CycloneYoris talk! 00:17, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CycloneYoris talk! 00:17, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CycloneYoris talk! 00:17, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, it is a word:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to determine consensus whether or not sources consist of WP:SIGCOV
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 16:10, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A word being used in sentences does not confer any encyclopedic value upon the word. Does anybody think that? The word has to be a concept, discussed in sources and distinguishable from the common notion of liking a random country. Geschichte (talk) 20:59, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - I have already pleaded in this page not to redirect the article to Canada again. However, I later found that this page is about deletion and decided to post my vote with some remarks. While most people in the West have positive views about Canada (with a common saying "That's it! I'm moving to Canada." while discussing about federal issues), I have no idea whether this topic is notable enough to have an article. If the article is deleted, then we should at least mention the Canadophilia at Canada or something. 2409:4061:2DCF:43B5:4BE8:A8D3:8EDE:B551 (talk) 10:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to Canadaphile per above.4meter4 (talk) 16:00, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Frivolous nomination that offers no new arguments that were not discussed in the previous AfD. (non-admin closure) ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dream_(YouTuber)

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

Not notable outside of Minecraft YouTube Amillionmonkeys (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep: Did you even take a look at all of the sources within the article to verify the notability? He's clearly notable outside of YouTube, and even if he wasn't but sources were still provided, he'd still be notable. Waddles 🗩 🖉 16:13, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Geschichte (talk) 16:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert-Joseph Coffy

[edit]
Robert-Joseph Coffy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unverified article since its creation in 2007. A WP:BEFORE search only found sources with trivial coverage or works too closely connected with the subject. Fails WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 (talk) 15:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:25, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:25, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:25, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:25, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the links provided, including in other language versions, verify his status as a Roman Catholic archbishop and cardinal. Based on his lifespan being before the Internet, his home newspapers being en Francais, it's reasonable to believe that he has significant RS offline coverage, but that may not be discoverable with even the best online search tools. While WP:BURDEN might suggest that this would argue for deletion, common sense must apply: you don't just have a cardinal archbishop in the 20th century about whom nothing has been written anywhere, and to the extent that anyone is or might soon be arguing that is the case, I suspect a WP:CIR failure. Jclemens (talk) 17:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens there is only a single link provided, not multiple links. Further, the source is basically a personal website by Gabriel Chow with no editorial oversight, and as such is a self published resource. As such, it doesn't meet the quality standards for RS required to meet GNG. While I certainly agree it's plausible off-line French language sources exist, it's my view that we favor deletion in cases where such sources aren't confirmable. We would never delete anything if we can just make a claim that sources exist without providing any real evidence that they do in fact exist. 4meter4 (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't look in all the other language versions, but I did look in the French version of the article. Jclemens (talk) 21:23, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
... and it's time to parse the statement "We would never delete anything if we can just make a claim that sources exist without providing any real evidence that they do in fact exist."
  • 4meter4 do you understand what an Archbishop is? Do you believe there exists any Roman Catholic archbishop in the 20th century for whom no evidence of notability exists anywhere, to include sourcing that is offline or in other languages?
  • Do you understand what a Cardinal is? Do you believe there exists any Roman Catholic cardinal in the 20th century for whom no evidence of notability exists anywhere, to include sourcing that is offline or in other languages?
  • You may find WP:PAYWALL, WP:OFFLINE, WP:NONENG, and other related pages helpful in formulating your response. Jclemens (talk) 21:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Recently, an RFC overturned the assumption of notability with military officer ranks and frankly I think the same should apply to religious/ministerial positions. Yes, I do believe that some religious personnel of this standing may potentially lack significant independent RS and that presumed notability shouldn't be the standard approach utilized. Best.4meter4 (talk) 23:35, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Already ongoing for a while at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion/Notability guide.4meter4 (talk) 08:32, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sources do not need to be in the article for it not to be deleted. We presume notability in this instance: there are almost certainly many, many offline sources in other languages. StAnselm (talk) 18:57, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep aside from the general point that there is ample precedent for keeping articles about cardinals, a Google books search shows up plenty of instances of people citing him, discussing his views and talking about initiatives he started. Mccapra (talk) 22:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. For all of the complaining here, and the assertions that evidence exists, not one keep vote has actually posted any sources here for us to examine and evaluate. Please do so if you were able to locate quality RS, otherwise it's just hearsay. Also, I looked at google books before nominating and disagree that there is significant RS to be found in a google books search. Other than actual books he penned himself, the sources that are visible only contain very brief mentions of the subject which are not substantial enough to be considered significant coverage. It's possible some of the non-visible sources have significant coverage, but's it's equally possible that the coverage is trivial.4meter4 (talk) 23:28, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, actually, it's ridiculous for you to presume that a cardinal archbishop might lack reliable sourcing, and the WP:AGF interpretation is that you simply have no idea what you're talking about, all your assertions to the contrary. Your replies to my queries ignore that this is a pre-Internet prelate in a non-English-speaking country, both of which are unquestionably major factors in why coverage isn't just falling out of the sky. If you could go to Marseille, reading French, and review all the newspaper archives around Coffy's 1985 appointment as archbishop, do you really think that there would be not one single independent RS providing significant coverage of him? The reason you are getting so much pushback is that while your interpretation of the rules might be reasonable, your application of them clearly is not. No encyclopedic purpose is served by debating, much less deleting, Roman Catholic cardinals of the modern era. Withdraw this nonsense nomination lest it appear more WP:POINTy than it already does, please. Jclemens (talk) 07:09, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will gladly withdraw once multiple RS has been found and presented here or in the article. Until then, SIGCOV hasn’t been met.4meter4 (talk) 08:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SIGCOV is met when RS'es exist, not when they're identified, and not when they're added to the article. That's what the presumption of notability means. Keep reading and you find the following on the same policy page, under the WP:NEXIST section: "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article." This is exactly what I did with the thought experiment regarding newspaper archives in Marseille, and with which you have declined to engage. I suspect the reason you're seeing no one else support your position, regardless of whether any of us have successfully gone hunting for possibly offline sources likely to be found in French, is that the main two possibilities are that you have a very broken understanding of how much coverage Catholic archbishop cardinals receive, or that the entire AfD is a WP:POINT violation. Both of these are very bad optics, but the more you write here, the less there is an obvious third choice which would explain your position as both competent and in good faith. You again have a couple of choices: Continue to write here and possibly explain things better or possibly dig your hole deeper, or withdraw the AfD. Your choice. Jclemens (talk) 21:16, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For a 20th century Cardinal of the Catholic Church, I am absolutely certain that sufficient RS for notability will exist. It is just a matter of finding them. I think there is likely a substantial amount of coverage of his ten years as Archbishop of Marseilles, and of his having been named as a Cardinal by the Pope, in the French newspapers. But, I don't even know how to search French newspapers from the 1980s and 1990s, and it seems no one else here does either. In a case such as this, in which RS are highly likely to exist, yet no editor has access to those RS, I think it is entirely legitimate to keep the article. And it is worth noting that every single editor who has chosen to comment on this AFD thus far has been in agreement with this; it is only the nominator who disagrees with this logic. I second User:Jclemens's call above, for the nominator to withdraw the nomination. Mr248 (talk) 06:49, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Addendum: The obituary in Le Monde which Genericusername57 found is clear proof of notability. Anybody who has an obituary published in one of the newspapers of record of a major country is very likely to be notable. And the obituary itself asserts his notability, by calling him a "théologien de référence" (literally "reference theologian", although "influential theologian" would be a more natural translation). It also notes his contributions to official reports on theology published by the Catholic Church in France, and his contributions to politics (publicly opposing the far-right National Front party, campaigning against proposed changes to French citizenship laws, and promoting tolerance among diverse ethnic/religious/etc communities.) It notes he published a book Teilhard de Chardin et le socialisme, and their act of drawing attention to his published works shows they likely have some significance as well. And I'm sure if one of the major French national newspapers covered his death, other French media at the time would have covered it too, so there are very likely more French language media sources covering this, even if nobody has managed to find them. Mr248 (talk) 23:42, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Even if he had never risen beyond being Bishop of Gap, he would be notable as a bishop of the Catholic Church, but he spent 10 years as an archbishop and became a cardinal. The problem with the article is that it is still a stub. Perhaps the French WP known more about him! Peterkingiron (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The man was a cardinal-archbishop, for crying out loud! Diocesan bishops of major churches have always been considered to be notable by longstanding consensus and common sense. And WP:GNG is easily satisfied. Obituary in a major newspaper. Easily notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Of course someone who has a very senior position in the institution that has done more than any other to shape the Western world over nearly two millennia should have an article in any half-way comprehensive encyclopedia (let alone a fully comprehensive encyclopedia like this). It's only necessary to appeal to policies and guidelines in the questionable cases, not the obvious ones such as this. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No opinion on which version to revert to. Geschichte (talk) 08:44, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khanom la

[edit]
Khanom la (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not noteable NW1223(Howl at me|My hunts) 15:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:26, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:26, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete under criterion G11. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck nduka-eze

[edit]
Chuck nduka-eze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not seeing how this individual meets the criteria of WP:GNG or WP:BIO. The sources provided are either not about him directly (rather about the organization he's involved with), or are trivial mentions (he is noted as being the prosecutor for someone accused of vandalism). I am unable to find significant discussion of him in multiple reliable sources. ... discospinster talk 15:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 15:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 15:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 15:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ProgRock Records

[edit]
ProgRock Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to satisfy WP:NCORP/GNG. – DarkGlow • 14:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 14:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 14:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 14:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:38, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WJEA-LD

[edit]
WJEA-LD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find a single source which gives any significant attention to this TV channel, only some (few) database listings. Both the old name or the new name draw a blank. No news stories at all even mention this channel. Perhaps there is some list where this can be redirected to, otherwise deletion seems the best option. Fram (talk) 14:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yamini Aiyar

[edit]
Yamini Aiyar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I feel this topic is not notable because GNG require significant coverage. Here the coverage is she writing herself. So it is not fulfilling GNG. Aloolkaparatha (talk) 13:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Aloolkaparatha (talk) 13:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Aloolkaparatha (talk) 13:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:10, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Geschichte (talk) 16:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Polli Cannabis

[edit]
Polli Cannabis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Authors believe this is ready for mainspace, it has been moved back to draft multiple times and has been declined. No indication she is notable. ~ GB fan 13:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • To publish Polly Cannabis is an outstanding model of our time! Has more than 20 titles from participation in beauty contests. Nominated for a Guinness World Record! Participated in Miss Earth and Miss World!

I think that the opinion of the editors of Wikipedia is subjective that Polly is not a significant person.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavrush89 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC) — Gavrush89 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • To publish Good afternoon! Polly Cannabis is a model from Belarus, who participated in 20 international beauty contests. Among them are such large ones as Miss Earth and Miss Grand. It is well-known and popular in Belarus, therefore it has the right to publish. Thanks!(Olya Tovpenec)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.127.198.16 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)Note:This user has made no other edits on Wikipedia. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 15:35, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – this is basically a promotional piece, with no significant coverage in independent, secondary and reliable sources. The notability criteria for beauty pageant participants are pretty detailed. The closest that Cannabis comes to a claim to notability according to those criteria is the fact that she won the national pageants selecting the Belarussian participant in Miss Earth 2017 – but as pointed out in the criteria, there is no guarantee of notability, it is all down to the existence of significant coverage in reliable sources. It doesn't help that there has been a lot of disruptive activity around the article, with at least two single-purpose accounts tag-teaming to create and recreate the article, bypassing create protection, tagging declined drafts for speedy deletion and immediately recreating them without the decline, and so on. It is pretty obvious that this is paid spam, but even if it weren't, notability just isn't shown, or even credibly claimed. --bonadea contributions talk 15:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:28, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG, being nominated for a Guinness World Record and participating in Miss Earth and Miss World confers zero notability. Theroadislong (talk) 16:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • To publish If you follow the logic of those who prevent you from publishing an article about Polly Cannabis, then you need to delete all articles about models and participants in beauty contests.

In my opinion, the posting of the article is hindered by the subjective attitude towards the heroine. Polly Cannabis deserves to be published on Wikipedia on an equal footing with other models! By deleting this article, the moderators show an intolerant attitude towards beauty contests and the fact that victories at them are less significant relative to other achievements, although this is also hard work! Gavrush89 (talk) 18:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC) — Gavrush89 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • To publish If 20 nominations in beauty contests is not enough Polly's contribution, then almost all models who participated in beauty consultations and have articles on Wikipedia should have gone from Wikipedia. Editors' opinions are highly subjective and discriminate against women's achievements. The article must be published in the main space! — Gavrush89 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 08:12, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per WP:AFDEQ "Use of multiple accounts to reinforce your opinions is absolutely forbidden. Multiple recommendations by users shown to be using "sock puppets" (multiple accounts belonging to the same person) will be discounted and the user manipulating consensus with multiple accounts will likely be blocked indefinitely." Theroadislong (talk) 09:15, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per WP:AFDEQ I'm sure editors are looking for any reason to remove an article. After all, deleting an article is easier than acknowledging Polly's accomplishments. The fact that fans decide to post an article does not mean at all that they are breaking a rule of the Wikipedia community! — Gavrush89 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 10:25, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fans? The article's creator has claimed that the professional photos of Polli Cannabis uploaded to Commons are their own work. --bonadea contributions talk 11:58, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not only fans, but also not indifferent people who are not indifferent to the achievements of their compatriots! Tell me what the article you published https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Göran_Enander better or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunilla_Wolde and more objective articles about Polly? Here, in my opinion, the abuse of power! Tell me, why don't you like people from Belarus and you so stubbornly oppose this country and its outstanding inhabitants? — Gavrush89 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 12:22, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  • To publish That Polly is worthy of publication on many portals of the world. And this is not considered a reason for posting an article? Seriously? Links posted below:

https://capelino.com/doll-polly-cannabis-was-photographed-for-lofficiel-newsletter/ https://m.famousfix.com/post/polli-cannabis-l-officiel-magazine-pictorial-latvia-march-2016-105248923 https://thegreatpageantcommunity.com/2017/10/15/miss-earth-belarus-polli-cannabis-theft/ https://www.lionheartv.net/2017/10/miss-earth-belarus-2017-loses-smart-phone-philippines/?fb_comment_id=1578691338820428_1578703742152521 https://kickerdaily.com/posts/2017/10/miss-earth-candidate-experience-cellphone-snatching-in-manila/?fb_comment_id=1624849747537922_1625186680837562 https://filipinotimes.net/news/2017/10/23/miss-earth-candidate-receives-new-phone-pinoy-fan/ — Gavrush89 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 10:38, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • To publish One of the few who represents the beautiful country of Belarus at the international level and wins, wins titles in well-known beauty contests. Polly is known in Belarus, Europe (proof of this by the victory of Miss Elite Europe in May 2021) and in the world as a woman model.

Deleting an article is a mistake, why 20 international popular beauty pageants are not remarkable? Does Wikipedia devalue women's labor and discriminate against women? While Polly Cannabis in her interviews (read) stands for body positivity, peace, equality and women's rights. This is not fair. The article contains dates, names of international competitions and titles won. Enough references and facts.

It cannot be deleted if the editors of Wikipedia do not recognize beauty contests, this does not mean that contests are not important, this is the same as not recognizing sports competitions and discriminating athletes and their achievements. Volha 1991 11:07 , 3 September 2021 (UTC) — Volha 1991 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • To publish

Deleting an article is an error. Polly annually represents Belarus on the international arena, is engaged in charity work and supports women's rights. Articles about Polly are published not only in major Belarusian mass media, but also in foreign media. This proves that the sources are independent and reliable.

I do not agree that Polly Cannabis's article is an advertising article: nothing is sold or advertised in it. The article contains facts about education, about work activities, about achievements and awards. World beauty contests are an important criterion for media coverage. It seems that an important factor in deleting an article is a gender attribute. Are women not so important? And not so famous? And they don't deserve the right to publish? I want to believe that this is not the case in 2021.— Tovpenec15 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

No need to pretend that this is somehow connected to gender. Wikipedia contains a very large number of articles about beauty pageants and about contestants of different genders (or none). There is an active Wikiproject which has presented a detailed set of guidelines for determining the notability of contests and participants; this is linked above. The case was made about it being somehow different from articles about athletes – in fact, the situation is parallel. Hundreds of proposed articles about athletes are declined or deleted because the athlete is not considered notable, and thousands of sports contests are utterly non-notable, which doesn't make the Olympic Games any less notable. Note also that "famous" is not a criterion for notability, and nobody has a "right" to a Wikipedia article. --bonadea contributions talk 14:51, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please tell me what the article you published https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Göran_Enander better or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunilla_Wolde and more objective articles about Polly? Here, in my opinion, the abuse of power! These people are completely unremarkable, there are no references or significant achievements, then why can they be published and Polly not? Why are you doing everything to infringe on the right to free publication of women from Belarus? Why are you so biased about women's achievements? — Gavrush89 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 17:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepOne of the criteria for relevance is publication in authoritative sources.

Here are articles about Polly from one reputable source:

https://people.onliner.by/2021/07/02/19-konkursov-krasoty https://people.onliner.by/2017/08/17/polli-cannabis https://people.onliner.by/2021/05/30/beloruska-priz-v-mezhdunarodnom-konkurse-krasoty

Now a little about the rating of this authoritative source in the global Internet space according to the portal similarweb.com https://www.similarweb.com/ru/website/onliner.by/ screenshots are shown

1. More than 40 million visits monthly

thumb | center | Screenshot from https://www.similarweb.com/ru/website/onliner.by

2. This site is read in over 247 countries thumb | center | Screenshot from https://www.similarweb.com/ru/website/onliner.by

3. Traffic

thumb | center | Screenshot from https://www.similarweb.com/ru/website/onliner.by

4. Directions of publications

thumb | center | Screenshot from the site https://www.similarweb.com/ru/website/onliner.by

Hopefully this will be enough to confirm the significance of Polly Cannabis. — Gavrush89 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 19:20, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - obvious sockpuppetry is obvious. All accounts blocked. We should not entertain or gratify bad faith spamming like this by keeping this article. MER-C 16:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. And whether the AfD ends in a consensus to delete or not, User:Tovpenec15/sandbox should be deleted. --bonadea contributions talk 17:20, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even if the author of the article violated the rules, this does not mean that the person about whom the article was created has become less significant. At the moment, the moderators are judging very biased not only about the author but also about the hero of the article. AnuFree (talk) 17:33, 5 September 2021 (UTC)— AnuFree (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 major point at stake here is whether or not we should consider the Golden Gramophone Award to be viewed as a major music award.

We don't list it where you'd expect to a see a major award listed and the only local award listed in the awards nav template is the now defunct MTV Russia Music Awards. This seems to rule out meeting WP:SINGER#8. This leaves the policy basis for the keep votes on a poorer footing and pushes this from no consensus to delete. Seddon talk 00:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lyudmila Sokolova

[edit]
Lyudmila Sokolova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fail of WP:GNG and WP:NSINGER. nearlyevil665 18:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 18:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 18:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:49, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:49, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 06:10, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Adding to the WP:PROMO concerns, I've just noticed that the recent edits from the creator's account are all related to Lyudmila's record label. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:44, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 13:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Unsourced Promotional BLP. Unable to identity here in the traditional places you would find singers, like Spotify and Apple Music and Soundcloud. The two references for the Gramaphone award don't mention her. I don't know what is going on there. Even if there was an award, as a BLP there would still more coverage and its non-existant. If there was coverage there would be references. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:MUSICBIO. scope_creepTalk 09:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • How the article can be promotional if it only mentions her occupation and discography? I don't know what is going on, too, but two of the references provided on this deletion page (rusradio.ru and kulturomania) mention the fact. Does this Soundcloud [122] count? Kirill C1 (talk) 16:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep she won the major music award and source found by above. Clearly passes WP:MUSICBIO #8 by having the Golden Gramophone Award 2013. 117.18.230.34 (talk) 05:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While I agree that the article is poorly referenced, her award win means she meets criteria 8 of WP:MUSICBIO. This is easily verifiable on the website of the awards themselves where a list of winners is located. 4meter4 (talk) 16:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per nom, MrsSnoozyTurtle, and others. I would add, in reply to the above comment, that WP:MUSICBIO #8 is about a major award such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award. The award brought up in this discussion is not a major award. It's an award given by a single radio station... if not all that insignificant an award due to to the popularity of the radio station, it's still a far cry from the meaning of major indicated by the above example. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure whether this is relevant (or entirely correct), but from what I understand the award in question is not voted on by a panel or a jury but by listeners of that particular radio. nearlyevil665 21:53, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From what I understand, the award's are basically government sponsored, as it's a national radio station, and they are held at the Moscow Kremlin. I think you may be underselling the significance of the award. I have no idea if it's by popular vote or by a panel/jury of voters.4meter4 (talk) 22:31, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ILuminate

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

Fails WP:BASIC as article does not provide further information to support notability beyond covering a television appearance and the nature of their performance. Originally denoted the article for PROD under reason per WP:BIO, which was wrong; issue was not under that. An editor ended that PROD on grounds of adding more citations, but this does not deal with the real issue I now have had to highlight correctly in this AfD. GUtt01 (talk) 12:09, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Having the sources to pass WP:GNG is not the issue. It is WP:BASIC that is at fault here: even with the sources provided, the amount of coverage is trivial and leads to notability being questionable as a result. GUtt01 (talk) 18:04, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a biographical article so I don't think WP:BASIC applies. Your above comment reads like you agree with me that it passes GNG, am I interpreting it correctly? NemesisAT (talk) 18:13, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would only really agree on notability, if the article provided more content exactly. The only thing it was covering was just the company's part in a television programme and the director of the company, in brief lines. Even for a stub, that notability issue was a serious problem, and it was quite practically something that should have been sorted out. It was hard to understand how anyone hadn't, hence the AfD - if no-one had further added to the article to justify its notability since its creation several years ago, then either they didn't think to bother or couldn't provide more information because there were no verifiable/reliable sources to back it up.GUtt01 (talk) 18:22, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP] is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 19:34, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 01:44, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Numerically this is tilting towards deletion, but some sources have been provided, and the "delete" !voters have not explicitly engaged with them. Analysis of these sources would be useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 13:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Las Vegas Review Journal is partly interview but I feel it easily has enough non-interview content to count towards establishing notability. The Knox News source is weaker as much of it is quotes, however it does contain background information too. The New York Times article is a review and appears to be fully independent of the subject. NYT is a major, trustworthy publication and thus I feel this article helps establish notability. Finally, to demonstrate that the subject has WP:SUSTAINED coverage, I've found an article from Las Vegas Weekly from two days ago. I feel the wide range of sourcing establishes notability. NemesisAT (talk) 22:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This a dance company, not a business corporation, and as such WP:NCORP is not our standard because its a performing arts group which falls under WP:CREATIVE. There's enough RS here presented by NemesisAT and Qwaiiplayer to satisfy criteria 3 of that guideline.4meter4 (talk) 16:22, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After a month of discussion it is clear that there is no consensus about the notability of these topics. Editors who favored deleting these articles suggest that this event is not notable and the people being mentioned are not notable owing to their lack of individual award. While some editors who favored keep could plausibly have their !votes weighted downward by the group, rather than individual nature, of the award it is clear that even without that award there remains a substantial number of editors who feel that these topics meet our notability requirements, including that of sustained coverage. As such there is clearly no consensus at the current time. It may be possible to find a consensus in the future, especially as the issue of sustained coverage will have more information as coverage will either continue or it won't, and so it's recommended that no re-nomination occur for at least six months. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:50, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Howard Liebengood

[edit]
Death of Howard Liebengood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An earlier version of this article has already been deleted following an AfD discussion that I opened up over WP:SPLIT and WP:BLP1E concerns. That discussion agreed that there was no basis for notability on Liebengood's suicide, which I mentioned was not classified as a homicide (obviously) and therefore did not require an exhaustive investigation like with Brian Sicknick. Looking at the recreated article, I see not much has changed in terms of notability, and I don't see how it'll be raised now. Love of Corey (talk) 21:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Jeffrey L. Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Love of Corey (talk) 21:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "delete", are you referring to both articles, or just the main one? I have another article bundled into this AfD, which relates to another Capitol officer who committed suicide relatively recently. Love of Corey (talk) 22:16, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep /unsure, per below comment on Aug. 21/ /Keep after all: event is notable & significant honor; Merger would be okay/ per WP:ANYBIO criterion #1, The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor -- the award is the Congressional Gold Medal (list of recipients, 176 individuals since 1776). The subjects of the two articles is twofold: A BIO1E that passes automatically as a biography because of ANYBIO #1, but also, the event itself is notable, and the dominant aspect of the articles' subject is indeed the event, which is the suicide. Per WP:BIO1E, The general rule is to cover the event, not the person -- the articles duly cover the events of the police officers' suicides, which were covered in considerable depth. Per WP:EVENTCRIT, Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, .... These suicides obviously have an enduring historical significance because they are closely tied to a massively important historical event, they are regularly mentioned alongside the casualties, and there's no indication that this would change; GNG is met, evident from the references. Non-notable biographical information does not form the backbone of the articles' content. The articles are fashioned after Death of Brian Sicknick, which is notable for similar reasons, but also because of the controversy surrounding that police officer's death. However there doesn't have to be a controversy for something to be notable. I don't like how the nominator chose to select the less developed of the two articles as the primary nomination. Participants in this discussion should look at the other nominated article, Death of Jeffrey L. Smith, first, to see what the intended form of both articles roughly is. — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Love of Corey, in response to your comment that not much has changed in terms of notability, basically, two things have changed: (1) the well-known and significant award was since awarded, (2) the subject has been reformulated as an event, instead of a biography, necessitating a different lens than the one used last time. — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:57, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. on the basis of the award. There's noi need to enter into a more complicated argument when there's an obvious criterion. DGG ( talk ) 09:53, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. on the basis of the Congressional Gold Medal. Only awarded to less than 200 people since the founding of the republic. President Biden stated in the Rose Garden that Liebengood, Evans and Smith "saved democracy itself." More substantial news is happening now regarding Officer Smith and his assailants. I therefore vote keep. Thank you for inviting me to comment. Esvabird (talk) 13:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename to the person, because we aren't to second guess the awarding of the awardwhether the award was deserved or not - even though in my opinion itthe issuing of the awards has about as much rationale behind its awarding as giving the Peace Prize to Obama. 0 it's still a notable and significant award given by the people with the authority to do so. However, these articles all now need to be renamed as their death is no longer the potentially notable event, but their life is - just because the medal was awarded posthumously, our criteria says that it confers notability on the person - meaning they are notable themselves, not just for one event. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 15:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Made some edits to make clearer exactly what I'm saying and link directly to the policy I based my opinion on. I'll use this notification of my edits to my prior comment to also say that we may wish to rethink this "awards confer notability" not just for this award or field, but in general - that however is a topic for... well.. not here at least. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 13:52, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because of the award specifically, seems notable. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 19:30, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both articles. The awards passed by congress just for them, and coverage of them, make them notable enough for a couple of Wikipedia articles. Dream Focus 19:27, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Is no one I pinged going to respond? Love of Corey (talk) 04:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above discussion. I'm not going to get into the weeds of whether the award is per se notable, period. Bearian (talk) 15:53, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both; or Merge to one of the suggested articles, based both on the awards and their key parts in an historic event, a la Samuel Mudd and Jim Leavelle.
I would also rename to avoid the "Death of..." prefices. Their notability is not for their deaths alone, but for their participation in the insurrection response; for their deaths; and for the subsequent congressional recognition. TJRC (talk) 00:13, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Update: per my comment below, one of the various merges being proposed would be acceptable, too (e.g. to Law enforcement response to the 2021 United States Capitol attack or Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack). TJRC (talk) 19:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mysticair667537: you've been... misled by the manner in which the four gold medals have been included in the list. Each of the four officers was awarded a medal individually (which is not reflected in the list, but is clearly and correctly and verifiably stated here), and ...the organization /OSS/ was collectively honored with a Congressional Gold Medal. So, four people individually vs. an organization collectively. — Alalch Emis (talk) 15:02, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually no. I've take a second look at all the sources and read the full text of the bill, and the reason four medals were given was: "one each to be displayed at the headquarters of the Capitol Police and the Metropolitan Police, one at the Smithsonian and one at the Capitol." (NYT) It is not the case that four specific officers were each individually awarded a medal. All four medals were given to a collective. This means that Liebengood and Smith (and Sicknick, and Evans) are not, as individuals, recipients of this award. Nevertheless their names were noted in the bill, and were mentioned during the signing ceremony. This is still a major honor, but WP:ANYBIO #1 involving this award does not apply as it would had they been direct recipients. Not so sure about my !vote. — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:19, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Uhhhhh...but neither Liebengood nor Smith were confirmed to be behind any of the sabotage that happened that day... Love of Corey (talk) 06:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The dispute is about whether the awards outweigh the BLP1E problems. In my view, they do not, because the awards are also an aspect of the event (or its aftermath), and should therefore also be covered in articles about the event. Sandstein 18:19, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BLP1E would not apply as the person is dead -- BIO1E would. Had the subject of this article been defined as a biography of the police officer who committed suicide, BIO1E would pose the question of whether to formulate the subject as an event instead. Incidentally, the subject is already formulated as the event ("death of..."), so we're past BIO1E issues. The delete side needs to prove how the event isn't notable or how it doesn't merit a separate article for some important reason. — Alalch Emis (talk) 15:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be down with that if the articles are ultimately kept. The articles even use much of the same references and don't seem to be in a need of expansion anytime soon. Love of Corey (talk) 03:02, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is something I suggested on the talk page prior to the AfD. The other of the first two suicides. I think would be a satisfactory resolution to the perceived problem. Also okay would be a merger with a daughter article in the attack area such as Law enforcement response to the 2021 United States Capitol attack. It appears problematic to outright delete when the information included here (mainly the information in the Smith article), were it not included here, could (and would) simply be included in another article, i.e. a de facto merger would occur, and a regular merger is better. — Alalch Emis (talk) 23:11, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep /editor has !voted; this is a comment/ Hi, I am responding to the suggestion to merge Howie and Jeff into one article. This should not happen. As recently related in news sources, Jeff Smith was attacked by protesters, and medical evidence now shows that the attack was the proximate cause of his death. This makes his death different, and much more significant than that of Officer Liebengood. This is not to minimize the suffering that Officer Liebengood went through, more that, like Officer Sicknick, the science now shows that Officer Smith died as a direct result of the Capitol riots. Thanks for taking my view into consideration, and inviting me to comment. Esvabird (talk) 11:27, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But Smith's death isn't being reclassified into a homicide, is it? Love of Corey (talk) 02:16, 29 August 2021 (UTC) It is being investigated now. There are plenty of secondary sources noting this. I believe it will be, and two suspects -- the two suspects sued by widow Erin Smith -- will be charged with manslaughter. This is a very complicated and forensically significant issue. Please do not over simplify with such witty responses. Charges do not happen overnight, or even in a week. Esvabird (talk) 01:03, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete most of the keep comments around the award should be discarded because they incorrectly assume an individual rather than collective award. Absent that, none of the keep votes overcome the clear blp1e argument. Spartaz Humbug! 11:46, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIO1E (not BLP1E which doesn't apply here because the subject of the ostensible biography [which this article is not] is dead) has been addressed with an also clear argument that the articles are not biographies, but that the subjects are events instead.
Incidentally, WP:BIO1E also says if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles, for example, Howard Brennan, a witness to the JFK assassination. — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is sustained coverage at least of Smith's suicide August (the other nominated article). — Alalch Emis (talk) 08:03, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Abductive and others. BD2412's idea about a merger with the parallel article on Smith may have merit. Feoffer (talk) 01:53, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is nothing notable about this death. The Congressional Gold Medal was not awarded directly to this officer. Medals were awarded to the Capitol Police and the Metropolitan Police Department. Separate medals would be displayed in the Smithsonian and the Capitol.[123] TFD (talk) 03:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A non-story, missing How, Where and Why, also a bit rude to hype a regular person's suicide (same goes for the completely different article whose deletion tag links here for some dumb reason). InedibleHulk (talk) 18:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Continuous coverage, Biden remarked on these two officer's deaths in the signing ceremony, their names are noted in the award bill, Smith's wife is taking matters to court. Even if we wanted to, we can't humanly hype this any more. This is a decent subject. Edit: ...the only rude thing of note here is your approach to the article where you accused a complete neophyte of lying (you know that edits have attributions I suppose). Not everyone starting out has the competence to present information in a sufficiently rigorous way, divorced from personal biases and impressions, it's something that's learned; doesn't mean "lying" and "fabrication". — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:34, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Smith's article was humanly more hyped up until minutes ago. Editors changed "precipitating event" to "direct proximate cause of death", as if that's even a possible thing. Bunch of OR about mens rea, a brain injury becoming brain injuries, and more. Complete shit magnet (though that one at least includes the actual cause of death now). InedibleHulk (talk) 18:58, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And you fabricated or helped spread at least some of that "proximate cause" nonsense while calling alleged assailants "assailants", not some neophyte, along with repeatedly misusing "insurrection". InedibleHulk (talk) 19:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Esvabird made up the rest of what I fixed, and has been here since October, long enough to know WP:Verifiability. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:26, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember adding the words "assailants" and "insurrection"; perhaps I interacted with them during some copyedit. I also didn't add "proximate cause", and I propagated it only from the body where it had been included to the lead where this (intended) information (appropriately presented) is due, and I admit I did it uncritically, basically a copy paste operation. However the "proximate cause" wording is not just "Yet more bullshit" (bringing a bit of an unnatural... ferment... to this somber topic don't you think? ...while commenting on "rude" and "hype") -- it is contained in the actual doctor's report (page 15 "With a reasonable degree of medical probability, the proximate cause of his depression was the trauma that the experienced on January 6, 2021. ... With a reasonable degree of medical probability, due to mental illness, depression, he lacked the substantial capacity to form an intention to cause his own death. Depression killed him."), which quite possible the original adder was influenced by. Not ideal secondary sourcing maybe (even that?) but far from bullshitting. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:00, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I just came here to vote and move on, not to be sidetracked by the resident polling badger. You keep seeing things like a leftist, and I'll keep reading them in literal dictionary English. Good luck swaying the next one, eh? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:15, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't exactly seem like a non-story missing How, Where and Why based on your edits, and this discussion, eh? Article simply needs improvement like virtually any article. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:21, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The one about Liebengood is the one I seem to have said that about, you persistent misinformation vector. The What of the Smith story is even less clear if you honestly believe that green psychobabble, saying it was not a suicide. If you need any more help recalling how you do a lot of things I consider phony, check your own edit history for yourself, please. And in case some other hapless innocent English noob gets what you're twisting twisted, a cause of depression is one thing. A cause of death is a second and entirely different thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:35, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, whoa, whoa! Let's cool down the rhetoric, everyone! WP:NOTFORUM. Love of Corey (talk) 04:39, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep /editor has !voted; this is a comment/ I am late to the conversation because its fall and I have other things to do than be insulted and called names. I am sorry you feel that you know more than Dr Jonathan Arden, the former Chief Medical Examiner for the District of Columbia, and Dr Sheehan, a renowned physician psychiatrist with an expertise in line of duty emotional trauma. The reality, if you read the primary sources, is that both have opined that the proximate cause of Jeff Smith's death is the assault, leading to TBI and post-concussive syndrome, not the suicide. And, I am so sorry that you think that everyone spends all night on wikipedia and thus should know all the obscure rules about articles, etc. I thought I was contributing to a noble cause of increased knowledge, the purpose of wikipedia. If InedibleHulk feels so strongly that he is smarter, more knowledgeable, more correct, perhaps he can just take over editing all of wikipedia his or himself. PS - not a good look and not good encouragement to a newbe like me. Actually makes me want to have nothing to do with you or this entire wikipedia project. Finally, onto the keep. Sorry, when the President of the United States and the Speaker of the House of Representatives (who is the author of the bill), both reference Jeff Smith and Howard Liebengood in the bill signing, and the bill actually mentions their names in the bill, the fact that it may have some general applicability to other police does not diminish that this award was for them. All the spouses of the other LEOs were not invited, the spouses of Liebengood, Smith, Evens and Sicknick were invited. Because the award was for THEM. There pages should be kept. This is a truly meaningful event. Esvabird (talk) 12:33, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Verifiability is one of only three WP:Core content policies, nothing obscure. In the time it took you to write that sarcastic reply, you could have learned them all, no all-nighter needed. If a source doesn't say something, simply don't make it up, like most basically competent Wikipedians don't. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:22, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I hate to prolong an already lengthy discussion, but the significance of the award in this particular case has been seriously challenged, and that affects more than a couple of !votes. There's also the question of whether a merger would be appropriate; and if so, to what target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 12:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have to agree. An article about the award itself, probably with some summaries about notable recipients, would definitely be more notable than these, based on this argument. Love of Corey (talk) 04:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the main deletion nomination here should be seen as that of Death of Jeffrey L. Smith, because this article has been worked on much more, is much more developed, has more references, than Death of Howard Liebengood. It's absurd to delete the former based on arguments that seem to center on the latter or don't demonstrably address the former as well. It's very possible that several participants have missed that this is a bundled AfD, and haven't even read the Smith's suicide article. Because of how the nomination is formatted, the fact that this AfD concerns two articles is easy to miss, and I have to reiterate that it's problematic (and possibly disputable). — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:38, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG, Esvabird, Berchanhimez, Rubbish computer, Dream Focus, Bearian, and TJRC: I'm pinging you as all of the participants who have supported keeping based on the award as a reason for notability, in light of the relister's comment that the significance of the award in this particular case has been seriously challenged. This is true -- since this discussion has begun it was clarified that Howard Liebengood and Jeffrey L. Smith are not in fact recipients of this award; they however, were individually noted in the text on the bill, and Biden remarked on their deaths during the signing ceremony. Knowing this, it's probably fair that you get a chance to update your !votes and/or share any additional thoughts on notability, possibly based on other arguments. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:38, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I !voted keep based not on the award being a reason for notability in my mind, but based on the fact that there must've been a larger consensus than one AfD that decided so for it to be listed. If this discussion can override such a larger consensus, or if no such consensus can be found, then my !vote should be read as a delete as I do not personally believe this should lead to independent notability. I don't agree that the distinction between "individual recipient" and a "named member of a group recipient" is warranted. A person named as a reason an award is being awarded to a group basically gets the award. I think that any argument to delete/merge should hinge on the award's notability itself. Read this and my above !vote how the closer/others will - and feel free to ask for any further clarification. I agree that the award's notability has been seriously challenged - I question whether this venue can overturn that determination by the larger community and I disagree with the technicality of "individual" versus "named member of a group" award. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:47, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still good with a keep, but my enthusiasm is lessened; I wouldn't be upset by a merge to another appropriate article. I'm fairly agnostic on which, several good candidates have been suggested. I think the leading candidates are Law enforcement response to the 2021 United States Capitol attack and Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack. TJRC (talk) 19:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • On merger: Two different merger outcomes are possible:
  1. horizontal: Deaths of Howard Liebengood and Jeffrey L. Smith, per BD2412
or under a different name such as Suicides in the Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack
  1. vertical:
to Law enforcement response to the 2021 United States Capitol attack#Suicides
to (under a new level 2 header) Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack
I think that all of these are good options; it's important that good merge targets exist, and the fact that multiple exist is not something that can hinder consensus. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:51, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and vertical merger: The coverage has involved these two officers, and keeping them as part of relevant pages seems most appropriate based on arguments here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirby777 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment - I !voted keep not just on the basis of the award but on the general coverage, which I expect to continue. I do not agree that "I think that any argument to delete/merge should hinge on the award's notability itself" DGG ( talk ) 09:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Suicide among capitol police is incredibly rare. This makes this event deeply significant to understanding the aftermath of the January terrorist attacks AND our current political climate. Merge is inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:a601:af20:7500:c982:f6ea:7161:ab92 (talk) 16:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Congressional Gold Medal meets WP:ANYBIO. This award actually makes the man notable beyond his death and the article could be moved to just Howard Liebengood.4meter4 (talk) 16:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As has been pointed out above, though, Liebengood was not awarded that medal. TJRC (talk) 21:29, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Short version: Based on the arguments presented the two articles just about meet the policy basis to exist. From an editorial perspective, it seems the the community may wish to engage in a merge discussion and some of the content has been included in Law enforcement response to the 2021 United States Capitol attack. There is not sufficient enough consensus here to establish whether or not this is sufficient or whether another approach should be taken.
Long version: This discussion has proceeded for 1 month and relisted and I don't see any new arguments being brought forward. Numerically things are pretty even and the discussion basically revolves around three points:
  • does the conferring of a Congressional Medal merit inclusion based upon WP:ANYBIO?
  • does WP:BLP1E apply here?
  • are the events rather than the individuals sufficiently notable?
On the first point, many keep !votes suggested the award was sufficient enough to imbue notability. As was pointed out the the conferring of the congressional medal was to a collective and not individually; being part of a group awarded a highly prestigious award where the individuals deaths were expressly named. A strict interpretation of this suggests this single event may not be enough on it's own but it is certainly a contributing factor to notability.
Regaring whether BLP1E applies here. There are several points.
  1. The individuals are deceased.
  2. The individuals deaths occurred within the last 9 months.
  3. The articles focus on the death of the individuals rather than the individuals themselves.
WP:BDP states:
The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend based on editorial consensus for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside
-- with additional point of -- only apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide
I'm not aware of any consensus to extend the BLP policy in regards to these individuals and the nature of the suicides is not under any dispute so as has been noted the policy doesn't apply.
The events of Liebengood and Smiths deaths have been raised consistently over a 9 month period, with articles relating to their deaths, a legal case by jeffery smiths family, the politicizing of their deaths, the conferring of the awards to the capitol police and their explicit acknowledgement by the President, in relation to other suicides, editorial boards opinions in relation to police suicide more broadly, whether or not suicides should be considered deaths in the line of duty and the naming of a wellness fund after liebengood. The event of their deaths, are notable enough in their own rights to meet the requirements of both WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E even when the latter does not apply for the reasons noted.
Addressing the possible precedent set by the 1998 capitol shooting, as Barkeep49 noted in his close in that AfD the keep votes in that discussion had not explained why WP:BIO1E did not apply, which has occurred here in this discussion.
Towards the end of this discussion, there does seem to be room for a discussion around potentially merging these articles. The events of their deaths are temporally proximal and by this point they are referred to in tandom. Some of the content has been included in Law enforcement response to the 2021 United States Capitol attack. There is not sufficient enough consensus here to establish whether or not this is appropriate or whether another approach should be taken.
Based on the arguments presented that has been examined above the articles as they stand meet the minimum standards from a policy perspective but I would encourage the community to discuss merging the articles which would be valid from an editorial perspective.Seddon talk 00:50, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 drone strikes in Afghanistan#2021. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of drone strikes in the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan

[edit]
List of drone strikes in the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An unnecessary content fork of List of drone strikes in Afghanistan, the recent change of regime is easily reflected in the main article and until/unless substantial new 'striking' is done post-US-withdrawal, the subject is better covered as a continuation of the main article. The principal target and 'striker' having remained the same and all content in this list already being in the 'main' list article, the two are effectively already MERGED. Pincrete (talk) 12:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:23, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Normally an article which had been just deleted a couple months ago and whose deletion had been endorsed at DRV would default towards delete at any new AfD. However, the DRV discussion explicitly made provisions for re-creation so that default does not apply in this case. On the whole there is a consensus of participants in this discussion, even when appropriately weighting by the previous AfD (plus DRV), to find that the topic at this time has enough coverage that it is eligible for an independent article under our notability guidelines. Equally per our guidelines, this does not mean the only appropriate way of covering the topic is an independent article and so after some time (i.e. 6 or more months) for the "dust to settle" a merge discussion may be appropriate to consider that issue. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shaurya Doval

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

Article that that has been deleted at least twice before at AFD and just over a month ago last time and the deletion upheld at DRV. Same concerns, BLP1E, GNG, and notability not inherited. If the article is deleted again, I ask the closing administrator to SALT it. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While the article has been poorly submitted before, the current version came through the draft process and there is a good discussion at Talk:Shaurya Doval on why the subject is notable, based on the references currently on the article. Curb Safe Charmer did good job validating the references and helping the get the article to it's current state. Jeepday (talk) 17:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... and the catch-22 of this is that now that you've pinged us, we shouldn't !vote, because of WP:CANVASS. But it's ok. In the discussion above, there are links to the DRV and the subsequent, very thorough source assessment table on the talk page where we show our working. You can trust the AfD regulars to read, check, comprehend, think, and reach the logical conclusion.—S Marshall T/C 09:33, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • S Marshall, I had recently learnt the concept of WP:CANVASS but pinging you was not meant to alter the outcome but was only meant to seek your unbiased counsel in the ongoing discussion. And, as true Wikipedians, we shouldn't have a bias towards anything. Hope you get my feelings. Ht24 (talk) 10:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Does the article fail WP:GNG? This analysis of sources shows that there are tensix references where the source is reliable and independent, and the coverage is sufficiently in depth. Therefore WP:GNG is satisfied.
Does the article fail WP:BLP1E? There are three criteria, each of which must be met for BLP1E to apply:
  • reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. This is not the case here because the coverage in reliable sources cover:
    • political activity
    • a quasi-political campaign involving mobile clinics and career counselling sessions
    • conflict of interest
    • a libel case
    • two notable honours
  • the person is a low-profile individual. This is not the case here - this person has sought the limelight, for example by erecting billboards with his photo on them.
  • the person's role in the event was not substantial or well documented. The nominator doesn't identify which one event the subject is notable for, but assuming it was the conflict of interest, for example, his role in that event is substantial. If the one event was the connection between Shaurya's business interests and his brother's, then there would be no story if Shaurya was not a substantial part of it.
BLP1E requires all of those criteria to be met whereas in my view, none of them are met.
Should the article be deleted on the basis of WP:INHERITED? No, because having a notable father doesn't make someone an inappropriate subject for a separate article if the son is shown to be notable in their own right, as is the case here. The 43rd president of the US isn't disqualified from having an article about them just because their dad had previously been the 41st president.
Should this subject not have an article now because two previous AfDs resulted in delete? No, because in deletion review, the author put forward new sources and was encouraged to submit a fresh, rewritten draft featuring those sources and to submit for a thorough review at AfC, which they have done.
Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:24, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Liz there is something wrong about this article and also about this AfD. Since you moved back this entity from a draft to namespace which was earlier executed with a possible intent to bypass this. I have checked the sources - most of them lack WP:SIGCOV and the usage of such sources in the article lacks WP:NPOV in interpretation. Also, as per WP:BLP1E only one single event (but as a general news of filing a legal case against someone... can legal cases be counted notable?) that's basically the "conflict of interest" one which led to a "libel case" and then there is a closure statement which include "an apology" from the person who has been sued in the first place - the AfC reviewer have considered all these sub events seperately. Why? Secondly most of the prominent news sources starts with or includes "Doval's son" who happens to be incumbent intelligence chief of the country. On top of that, how that can be compared with 41st and 43rd president logic? The entity is not walking on his father's footstep i.e, he is not part of government apparatus. His current affiliation is independent from his Father and that too not notable. It seems... either its a top notch colluding or its pure ignorance of Wikipedia rules at editor's level. A clarity should lead to consensus.
Also, pinging DGG, and Timtrent. Despite knowing it, this might invoke WP:CANVASS and I apologize for that but I am not able to refrain myself from such poor interpretation of wikipedia guidelines. - Hatchens (talk) 13:53, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel canvassed, nor influenced in any opinion I may or may not develop and may or may not express. I view this as being asked to take a look and form my own view. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 15:34, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article was nominated for deletion at this AFD and then an editor moved it to Draft space. This has happened a few times recently, usually, I'm guessing, as a way to avoid possible deletion. This is disruptive so I moved the article from Draft space back to main space so this discussion could continue. That was my only involvement and I have no opinion on whether or not this article should be kept or deleted. Liz Read! Talk! 01:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Dear Liz, WilliamJE, I am new to Wikipedia and this is the first AfC submitted by me. I wasn't expecting it to be highly controversial and that there would be so many people responding to it. That's why I moved this article to draft with the intent to make it better by adding more relevant information and reliable links to add credibility to my work. And also to resolve the unnecessary disagreements, accusations, and counter-accusations among the fellow Wikipedians over an article. Had I known that my act would be seen in a negative light, I wouldn't have done that. Ht24 (talk) 05:07, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ht24 Please do not be concerned. We discuss things in order to reach consensus. Opposing views are relevant and important. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 09:02, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Delete: I have been asked to come here and offer a considered opinion. I have studied the source assessment table on the article's talk page, and the various arguments here to seek to see what the problem might be. Initially I found it hard to understand why the person had an article at all, struggling with obvious notability. While not a policy, I favour WP:SPEAKSELF. I'm still struggling with that. My view is that obvious notability is not easily discernible, but that sufficient independent sources have found the person to be worth writing about. WIkipedia's role is to record what others say about a person or a topic. I view this as an article which , while deserving significant improvement, passes fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 15:44, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a further study and realised that I had bamboozled myself by precisely the thing I look out for at AFC. I had made too cursory a scan of the references, confusing quantity with quality. I apologise. I have read them im detail im the cold light of day. I have modified my opinion above. There is no notability save that inherited from his father (etc). He happens to be part of the same family. The references lack substance about him. WP:NOTINHERITED applies. I should have worked this out yesterday when I was struggling to find notability. Instead of waiting and thinkkimng further I offered mhy opinion while tired, alwasya foolish thingh to do. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 08:59, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I may have been notified, but obviouly the ed. who pinged me had not the least idea how I would vote: I do not consider that canvassing. I think the individual has no significance in the Real World, except for being the the son of his father. I cannot imagine that any of the activities would have gotten. any coverage otherwise, so the relevant rule is NOT INHERITED.When his ather's infence leads him eventualyto haveacareerand ruputation of his own, to theextentthat hearticles mention the father in a short commentonly, then he might become notable . DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:DGG, if Doval was American he would totally have an article. Would you vote to delete Ashley Biden?—S Marshall T/C 07:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ashley Biden's father is Head of State; Doval's father is only National Security Advisor; . I don't think. we have any assumption about children of cabinet ministers and people at a similar level. But there is no bias in favor of the US--if anything, apparently a bias against including them: For children of USPresidents, checking in List_of_children_of_the_presidents_of_the_United_States I see we only include all legitimate (& most illegitimate) children who lived to be an adult from Jefferson through John Quincy Adams and Hoover to Ford . From Carter to the present we include only selected ones.--in fact, we have deleted articles' n Obama's children and on Barron Trump. So recent precedent is that we include them only if they are notable themselves. As for Ashley Biden, she isI think older than Shaurya Doval, andcertanly has engaged in many more activities, some of which might be enough for notability on her own (but the article is an example of tabloid-style coverage). I am about to nominate the article on her husband--see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howard Krein DGG ( talk ) 17:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I was the nominator of the 2nd AfD, and nothing appears to have changed between the two versions of the article. My assessment remains the same, from the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaurya Doval (2nd nomination): A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail; and unremarkable professional and "public policy thinker". What comes up is passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. Notability is not inherited from the subject's father, Ajit Doval. There's a minor controversy that relates to a nn think tank, but this insufficient for establishing notability. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, since having been canvassed isn't stopping anyone else !voting. The source assessment table shows that there are more than two reliable, independent sources that have written articles about Doval. This simple test shows that Doval is notable. And it's really important to have a simple test -- so that anyone can tell if the article they propose to write is about something notable. As soon as we start undermining that simple test by deleting articles that pass, then it loses its value because editors won't be able to write new content without going through a committee process first.—S Marshall T/C 16:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
pass at AfC simply means the reviewer thinks the article would probably pass AfD. it is not and never was intended to be the actual process for deciding on content, but rather just a screen to keep out the imposible and improve the borderline. Considering pass afc to imply will certainly also pass afd would mean that about 90% of drafts in afc would be declined, because very few articles are submitted there that will certainly pass afd --it basically takes a class B article on an unambiguously notable subject in a field where nobody disputes the criteria for notability to be certain of passing AfD, considering its notorious variation. The proof of that is that almost no experienced editor has a 100% record of the articles they !vote keep actually passing, . Even if we interpreted "passing afc", as being certain that it ought to be kept at afd, it still won't be 100%, because experienced editors disagree on many articles--hence the afd process.
So far from afc requiring a committee, any new editor can write an article and get it into mainspace if any one reviewer thinks it has a decent change. the committee process is afd, and here it takes its chances with every article written by anyone. Not all afc passes come here, only the questioned ones. I haven't tried to do a query, but I think about 90% of what passes afd does get kept in WP without undergoing afd at all, because most reviewers are properly conservative . (the actual problem is the opposite--some are too conservative and will not pass valid stubs or articles with good references but without correct citation format. It's perfectly right that thecommunity, not a single reviewer, should decide on acceptability as an article. DGG ( talk ) 16:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG, @S Marshall to underline that, I would have accepted this at AFC because it is, in my view, borderline, and has a better than 50% chance again in my view of surviving a deletion process, but have opined to delete it at AfD because I feel it to be on the wrong side of the border. While this is a paradox, it is not an incorrect set of views. I'm pleased that AFC allows borderline drafts through, and am equally pleased that AfD weeds some out. Community consensus beats the opinion of a reviewer any day. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 21:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not talking about AFC, I'm talking about the GNG pass. Count the sources, 1 2 3, are they reliable? Oh yes, they are. Are they independent? Yup. Are they about Doval? Yes indeed. So this is a bright line GNG pass. I would have written this, in the honest and sincere belief that it's allowed. When we start capriciously deleting content that's a bright line GNG pass, we're undermining the purpose of the rule, which is to allow people to write, safe in the knowledge that their content meets our inclusion criteria.—S Marshall T/C 07:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • S Marshall, Link 1 is about the entity being part of a constituted panel of American think tanks Center for American Progress - cannot be counted as credible per se as we all know how think tanks operate around the world - they call themselves non-partisan type but most of them are not. Link 2 is from The Economic Times, part of WP:TOI which tends to have a bias in favor of the Indian government ref. WP:RSP. Link 3 is from The Wire (India) which challenges the narrative or origin of the entity. If that link has been used properly then a lot of WP:PUFFERY would have been removed in the first instance itself. To further elaborate the puffery, please follow the following text from the article; 1. "He became the party's convenor for good governance in the state" and 2. "Doval conceptualized 'Bemisaal Garhwal' under the banner of 'Buland Uttarakhand' which aims to improve the quality of education and health in Uttarakhand." Now, if we look at the - Citation Links 9 to 13... it's a pure case of WP: CITEKILL. My mind boggles, how come these important inputs have been missed by the reviewers? (not one but by many) Yes, the entity has the potential to have a Wikipedia page but not now, maybe in near future and that too depends on how this entity evolves down the line. Because right now I'm not able to understand how we should classify or categorize him. Shall we count him as an entrepreneur/businessman? - no, because he has not been part of any notable business or business house. Shall we count him as a politician? - no, because he has not won a single election at the federal or state level. Shall we count him as an academician? - no, because he has no academic credentials (related to his think tank) to support via Google Scholar, Scopus, or any major bibliographical index. Nevertheless, whatever would be the verdict of this AfD - it would have my full support. But, it's high time for us as editors/reviewers to start introspecting about our involvement in such AfD discussions which directly undermines the very essence of this platform and at the same moment... wastes everyone's time. I apologize to everyone for my blunt comment. - Hatchens (talk) 08:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let me address each of these scattershot arguments in turn.
You raise concerns about puffery. If puffery exists, it should be removed, but puffery is not a good reason to delete entire articles.
You raise concerns about the number of citations. In doing so, you query citation links 9 to 13. I'm not able to read link 9. Link 10 is from the Indian Express, which we as a community have evaluated as a reliable source (see WP:INDIANEXP). Link 11 is from the Hindustan Times, and in that matter I rely on the discussion in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 August 3 where an editor knowledgeable in such matters evaluated the Hindustan Times as a reliable source for this content. And I'm not able to read links 12 or 13. So what I see, when I check those sources, is that every one of them that I understand is a reliable source within Wikipedia's normal definitions of those terms.
You then admit that "the entity has the potential to have a Wikipedia page", with which I concur, and this is that page.
You then say you're not sure how to classify or categorize him. I agree with this concern and I said on the talk page that he is, at best, an aspiring politician. We have plenty of content that's hard to classify or categorize. I'm not able to classify or categorize our article on Paul the Octopus, but by our rules, this is not a valid reason to delete content.
Finally, you chastise those who are wasting everyone's time. I agree with this view and I do wish they would stop.—S Marshall T/C 09:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  – Per rationale by Curb Safe Charmer, The source analysis, which I agree with and also learnt a few things from. There are enough sources to demonstrate that GNG is met and that 1E does not apply.Princess of Ara 19:25, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: S Marshall, We all are involved in a civilized discussion so kindly don't get agitated and try to be polite. I apologize for those so-called "scattershot arguments" as you have termed them. Maybe I lack the level of intelligence required to address your level of thought process. So, please bear with me for the following additions to those "scattershot arguments".
    When I raised the issue of puffery; you being a strong advocate for this entity could have addressed it by voluntarily editing the page and getting qualified as per WP:HEY. But, you will not because you think that you can play the ball by calling shots from outside and try to influence the AfD by changing the basic definitions of the arguments by calling them "scattershots". Its typical astroturfing tactic.
    Now, let's discuss the links. According to you, it's me who has raised the concerns about the number of citations. You're correct. So, now your goal post has changed from LINK 1, 2, and 3 to LINK 9, 10, and 11 which happens to be from the stable of Indian Express and Hindustan Times - out of which the first two links can be counted as the part of WP:RSP. Let's ignore that hijacked discussion on HT in the last AfD. Since the first link is in a native language I guess a simple google chrome online translation can reveal enough information behind it. I wonder why are you not able to read or shown any intent to translate the links despite endorsing this entity with such great conviction. See, I never endorse anybody without checking the facts (no matter what language it is published). By the way, it seems Ht24 and you share a great camaraderie. Excellent, we always encourage such teaming up but without undermining the Wikipedia guidelines.
    Now, as you have noticed that I admitted that "the entity has the potential to have a Wikipedia page", with which you concur, but this is NOT THAT PAGE. It means the entity qualifies for WP:TOOSOON - a straight and simple interpretation. I guess you might have missed it but it's ok, I am here to remind you and keep you on track.
    Now, as you have rightly noticed I'm not able to classify or categorize this entity. As you also agree with my concern and as you said on the talk page that "he is, at best, an aspiring politician"... well my dear friend that's not the actual reason for WP:NPOL qualification. You got to win some elections - federal or state. And, for god sake, don't compare this such nice gentleman with Paul the Octopus - this is not a valid reason to compare at all. In fact, as a well-versed reviewer or editor, one shouldn't compare pages. Every entity qualifies for a Wikipedia page on its own merit.
    Finally, as you figured it out that I chastised those who are wasting everyone's time and you do agree with my view. So, I thank you for your understanding and looking forward to your kind support in the near future. -Hatchens (talk) 10:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. While I can definitely see merits to DDG's argument that notability is not inherited and the concerns raised over whether or not these sources would have been written without the subject's familial connections, the fact of the matter is the sources do exist and Shaurya Doval is the main subject of multiple sources in reliable independent publications. As such, GNG has been met.4meter4 (talk) 17:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It passes WP:BASIC and is certainly a boring article about nepotism, but if being interesting was a requirement, we'd be deleting many more articles on Wikipedia. ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no obligation for us s to have a separate article for everyonepassingthe GNG. We've always combined information on fmaily memberswho haveno specfc accomplismentsof their own: it does not lose the information or the references, andits easy enough to find. What it lacks is the prestige from having a separate WP page. I don't think that's enough basis for an article, when the coverage is so closely related to the iondividual's position in the family. DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • DGG, I would recommend a sockpuppet/meatpuppet investigation on the basis of three major attempts to create this entity's page in last 3 months. Based on its outcome, a decision can be taken for SALTING There is a high possibility Ht24 is a WP:SPA, having WP:COI. And as per it's editing history, the user has worked on three pages of same political party and marked one for an AfD to throw us off from the track. - Hatchens (talk) 02:59, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @DGG I agree that this article could possibly be selectively merged and redirected to Ajit Doval, but I don’t think it’s a mandatory option. At AFD, merge is really only the best outcome when it’s the only option when a subject doesn’t meet GNG. This one does, so a merge discussion at WP:PAM without the threat of deletion is really the proper forum to make that decision. I would suggest making a formal merge proposal after this AFD closes (provided it is kept). Best.

4meter4 (talk) 03:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

a merge can reasonably be done directly--I tend not to like unnecessary bureaucratic steps.Of course, merge does have the "advantage" of being a much less visible process. A even less visible way that sometimes has been employed is to ensure that the basic information is added to the main article, and then redirect--this takes no discussion whatsoever unless it is noticed and challenged. I try to be more forthright: If a decision however absurd goes against my view, I wait an appropriate interval and try again; if it goes repeatedly against my view, I stop trying. There are at least half a million equally dubious articles to work on.
But looking again, I think my merge suggestion was not correct. In this particular instance, it's the present discussion which is aberrant. The argument that he should be included as the son of an official is against policy., There could however be an actual reason for keeping in his personal role. I doubt there is, but it is that which should have been argued, and the individual notability would be the think tank if anything. What I think the closer shoulddo is relist, and ask that it be argued on that basis alone, But if accepted, that leaves the choice between doing nothing and letting the article stand, placing another afd in a few months, or goin to deletion review. I don't think it important enough to be worth trying further, and my inclination would be to let what ever might be the closing stand.. As I said yesterday, there are half a million articles this dubious or worse. I'd go after the ones that are worse. It's rarely worth fighting to delete an individual article against strong opposition unless there's an important principle at issue, If you think there is , I suggest AfD4 in 6 months. DGG ( talk ) 18:37, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG: Re your comment "The argument that he should be included as the son of an official is against policy", is anyone suggesting that as the 'keep' reason in this discussion? I am not seeing anyone arguing the article should be kept on that basis. I am only seeing editors assert what you describe as "individual notability". Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Serrano

[edit]
Adrian Serrano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:MMANOT for only having 1 top tier fight. Also fails WP:GNG as fights are only routine report. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 02:15, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 09:12, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 09:12, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 09:12, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 09:13, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pro wrestler, he isn't notable. Just independent, minor matches. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:22, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:25, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

K. C. Banerjee

[edit]
K. C. Banerjee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG, and winning the fourth highest award of the country does not meet any of the SNG's. Onel5969 TT me 02:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As per the statistics provided by the Govt of India at http://www.dashboard-padmaawards.gov.in/?Field=Civil%20Service only 234 officers in a country of 1.38 billion people have been awarded the Padma Shri, the "fourth-highest award" of India, since they have been instituted in the year 1954, which makes it a rare feat. Please don't belittle someone else's achievements when you have none of your own! Qwertynk (talk) 15:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ Onel5969 TT me awaiting your response. Qwertynk (talk) 19:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - no response was indicated, but since you ask so impolitely, scarcity does not equal notability. Onel5969 TT me 13:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 09:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 09:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage by reliable, independent sources are cited. Multi7001 (talk) 18:09, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:"No significant coverage"- So untrue, since there are sources by the Government of India, Times of India, Ordnance Factory Board, Rifle Factory Ishapore, etc. Anyways, even if he has not been covered by the media, it gives all the more reason to keep the article. Since he was directly responsible for India's victory in the 1965 war. How many other such people do you know? Qwertynk (talk) 17:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hog Farm Talk 04:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rudy Giuliani promotions of Bernard Kerik

[edit]
Rudy Giuliani promotions of Bernard Kerik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnecessary WP:FORK. Any relevant information belongs at Mayoralty of Rudy Giuliani. KidAd • SPEAK 05:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 08:43, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 08:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:23, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OnlyMobiles

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

No evidence of passing NCORP. A BEFORE search only turned up articles on tieups, offers, etc. M4DU7 (talk) 05:57, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 05:57, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 05:57, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 05:57, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cthulhu Mythos deities. Content can be merged from history. Sandstein 10:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Kuttner deities

[edit]
Henry Kuttner deities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A while ago User:Susmuffin PRODed this but the prod was evidently declined. I suggest merging parts of this to List of Great Old Ones and redirecting the rest to Cthulhu Mythos deities, as I don't think this entry meets WP:GNG or WP:NLIST (and my BEFORE did not help; this grouping does not seem to exist in reliable sources). See similar outcomes for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clark Ashton Smith deities, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lin Carter deities. PS. Please do not hard delete this, WP:SOFTDELETE will do just fine, I just had to dig in IA to fill in blanks in the List of Great Old Ones. PPS. Also, interested editors may want to comment at Talk:Cthulhu_Mythos_deities#Two_lists_of_Great_Old_Ones_need_merging, TIA. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I don't really see why this has to be an AfD discussion rather than a normal merge discussion (which I had suggested in the past, but noone commented), but I support a merge to the suggested target lists as appropriate. Daranios (talk) 21:00, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:13, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just realized that this is a version of the Encyclopedia Cthulhiana. Anyway, it is a secondary source, and in spite of the introductory sentence of the Wikipedia article, to the best of my knowledge, this is not a role-playing game supplement. Daranios (talk) 15:23, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or delete - The topic fails WP:GNG. I don't really think the content needs to be retained seeing as it appears to be all plot information. I'm not sure if there are Lovecraft scholars that do deep dives into the lore, but it otherwise seems like most of it is way too in-depth to need to bother covering here. TTN (talk) 20:03, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and/or redirect per nom. Another article that looks to be unverified, likely based on original research from primary sources. Nothing independent to meet the WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Great Old Ones. There's consensus that this subject doesn't warrant a separate article. The page history is preserved, so any content deemed worthy of merging can be easily merged. Hog Farm Talk 04:47, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ramsey Campbell deities

[edit]
Ramsey Campbell deities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A while ago User:Susmuffin PRODed this but the prod was evidently declined. I suggest merging parts of this to List of Great Old Ones and redirecting the rest to Cthulhu Mythos deities, as I don't think this entry meets WP:GNG or WP:NLIST (and my BEFORE did not help; this grouping does not seem to exist in reliable sources). See similar outcomes for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clark Ashton Smith deities, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lin Carter deities. PS. Please do not hard delete this, WP:SOFTDELETE will do just fine, I just had to dig in IA to fill in blanks in the List of Great Old Ones. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I don't really see why this has to be an AfD discussion rather than a normal merge discussion (which I had suggested in the past, but noone commented), but I support a merge to the suggested target lists as appropriate. Daranios (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:13, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or delete - The topic fails WP:GNG. I don't really think the content needs to be retained seeing as it appears to be all plot information. I'm not sure if there are Lovecraft scholars that do deep dives into the lore, but it otherwise seems like most of it is way too in-depth to need to bother covering here. TTN (talk) 20:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and/or redirect per nom. There is no verifiable content to merge and it appears to all be WP:OR from primary sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Shooterwalker: What about the parts based on the Encyclopedia Cthulhiana? Daranios (talk) 10:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Cross School (Salem, India)

[edit]
Holy Cross School (Salem, India) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is like advertising purpose of particular private institution, Wikipedia is not a platform for advertisement Ram Dhaneesh (talk) 06:03, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Delete. I've tried to find sources, and aside from finding a lot of schools with the same or similar name, I have found nothing - though these discoveries could have resulted in valid sources being lost amidst the noise. Further, I haven't conducted a Hindi search. BilledMammal (talk) 06:57, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 08:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 08:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aubeangai

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

This article is about a fictitious settlement in Nonouti. Created with another ones in 2008 from a list of places in this atoll. --Arorae (talk) 11:37, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 10:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Temaraia

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

This article is about a fictitious settlement in Nonouti. Created with another ones in 2008 from a list of places in this atoll. --Arorae (talk) 10:57, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:35, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:35, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 10:34, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Makauro

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

This article is about a fictitious settlement in Nonouti. Created with another ones in 2008 from a list of places in this atoll. --Arorae (talk) 10:56, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:35, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:35, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 10:34, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tebatabuki

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

This article is about a fictitious settlement in Nonouti. Created with another ones in 2008 from a list of places in this atoll. --Arorae (talk) 10:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 10:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fatehgarh Sahib#Places of worship. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 23:22, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gurudwara Shri Jyoti Saroop Sahib

[edit]
Gurudwara Shri Jyoti Saroop Sahib (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This gurudwara is not a notable place of worship. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:25, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:25, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:25, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:25, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 19:55, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – There seem just passing mentions about this gurudwara in reliable sources. So redirection to List of gurdwaras#Punjab or some other suitable page seems like the best WP:ATD. We can easily sum up the sourced details about it in a line or two at the list article. Anyway, I will look again for sources in a day or two. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:30, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 10:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TaxScouts

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

Unremarkable company. Significant COI involved in creation and recent update. Coverage, e.g. In reference 3 (Techcrunch) seem to be based on corporate press releases. 10mmsocket (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. 10mmsocket (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. 10mmsocket (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with nom. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 11:37, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 10:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 00:54, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brown University Orchestra

[edit]
Brown University Orchestra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent coverage except for minor awards. Fails WP:BAND. Josefaught (talk) 01:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 10:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Clawfinger. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:38, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Henka Johansson

[edit]
Henka Johansson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable musician. Only found coverage in unreliable metal zines or other unreliable sources. Was apparently previously deleted by PROD and recreated so WP:SALT may be in order. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 23:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I have looked for Swedish-language sources and not found anything to satisfy WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. "Henka" is a nickname for "Henrik", so I've searched for that as well, and the variant "Henke", but the best source I've found is a reference ("Trummis på blixtvisit") to an interview in Nya Wermlands-Tidningen in 2013; I can't access the article itself, but one interview doesn't make him notable. There was another drummer called Henrik Johansson, who played with Apostasy (band) until he was murdered in 2006, and many of the search hits relate to that murder. I don't think salting is called for, not at this point anyway. The article was deleted in 2006 and it might not have been about the same person: Henrik is a common male name, Henka/Henke are standard nicknames for Henrik, and Johansson is the second most common last name in Sweden. The title could perhaps be redirected to Clawfinger. --bonadea contributions talk 08:37, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 10:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:44, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Boatsetter

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

Every accessible reference here is a promotional interview where the proporietor explains the merits of his scheme--these are not acceptable references for meeting WP:NCORP> DGG ( talk ) 22:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:43, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:43, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 23:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 23:46, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The last relisting
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 10:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Wade

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Oliver Wade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • The 2012 deletion discussion substantially focused on whether a person of this name met WP:MUSICBIO
  • Two subsequent WP:G4 deletions (3 March 2013 and 9 September 2013) were based on that discussion.
  • The 2021 version of this article is about a sportsperson, and so is not "substantially identical to the deleted version, and any changes do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted"
  • It would appear to me that the 2021 version does not pass any number of tests (WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG and so on for notability. There is no sport-specific guideline for fencing, but WP:SPORTBASIC would seem appropriate here.

As always, happy to be proven wrong - Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 10:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:21, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Thanks for re-entering this as an AfD discussion. Although not substantially identical to the first deleted version, it does suffer the same issue of having no credible claim of significance, albeit now in a different field. The given regional and student-level tournament medals do not meet the relevant notability requirements, especially given the absence of any published, non-trivial, secondary reliable sources. In my view, there is a strong possibility (as was suggested in the first deletion discussion) that the article is autobiographical, only this time the subject has chosen to portray himself as noteworthy for fencing, instead of as a musician. —Ave (talk) 10:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Interestingly (and rather amusingly), if you google search the subject and 'fencing' (see here) as I did in an attempt to verify some of the claims made in the article, the results appear to be limited to a couple of non-descript profiles on the European Fencing Confederation and the International Fencing Federation websites, a summary of results which don't include the medal-winning placings listed in the infobox, and a link to a dubious claim made by the subject on his LinkedIn to have captained his fencing team "at the 2018 Commonwealth Games" despite the fact that fencing has been absent from the games since 1970! The claim to have competed at "multiple World Cups" is also similar to the ambiguous "numerous World Cups" phrase used in the article. —Ave (talk) 11:53, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment 2: Curiously, that sentence has since been changed to read "at the 2018 Commonwealth Championships" [emphasis added]. However, despite my best attempts, I cannot find any evidence to corroborate that claim either. There is also a new claim to "regularly compete for Great Britain at major international fencing tournaments" which, again, seems dubious – a theme of puffery and peacocking is definitely emerging. Given the history of the article, a salt seems sensible. —Ave (talk) 13:28, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt - Zero evidence of meeting any notability criteria. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:53, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom, for failing WP:SPORTBASIC. Endorse Salting as well. Ifnord (talk) 03:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus to not keep. No consensus whether a redirect to Shogi variant#Standard-size variants is merited. All are free to create (and then to contest) such a redirect. Sandstein 06:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hand shogi

[edit]
Hand shogi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I could not find reliable and independent sources. There is an unsourced entry on Shogi_variant#Standard-size_variants so maybe it could be come a redirect to that. But as far as I can see all we have the chess variants page and the inventor's book. Slimy asparagus (talk) 10:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Slimy asparagus (talk) 10:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Slimy asparagus (talk) 10:35, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Slimy asparagus (talk) 18:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Natalina Windasari Hutahaean

[edit]
Natalina Windasari Hutahaean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability is not justified. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. DMySon (talk) 09:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 09:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 09:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 09:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 09:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:47, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Molly-Mae Hague

[edit]
Molly-Mae Hague (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

To put an end to the reversion wars happening on this page, I have started an AfD so editors can discuss why the page should be kept/deleted/redirected to Love Island (2015 TV series) instead of going back and forth undoing edits. I believe the page is not eligible for WP:G5 as I have added substantial content and citations to the page after its creation by a banned user.

Other editors have suggested it should be deleted as the subject has "no notability outside of show", however I believe her career as one of the UK's most successful social media influencers (with an ill fated giveaway widely reported on in the British press) and creative marketing director with PrettyLittleThing has given her significant notability outside of being a contestant on the show as well. pinktoebeans (talk) 08:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans (talk) 08:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans (talk) 08:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans (talk) 08:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - outside of the fact that this character does not have enough real-world coverage to meet WP:GNG. The article could have been speedied, since it was created by a blocked user, in violation of their block. An admin, in lieu of deleting, restored the redirect. Like UPE, banned editors should never be encouraged. Doing so weakens WP, and is a huge time-suck for actually valuable editors. Onel5969 TT me 13:21, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Onel5969: Thanks for your comment! While I do agree the article probably should have been speedy deleted soon after creation, unfortunately I managed to get my grubby paws on it before an admin could delete it and add quite a bit of content :-) As someone who hopes to be classifed as an "actually valuable editor", I hope what I've added proves Hague's merit of inclusion on Wikipedia. I'd like to hear what you think about the sources I linked in the original AfD post, and whether they sufficiently show Hague is notable apart from Love Island as a businessperson and influencer (whose social media career was not started by Love Island, but rather boosted by it). pinktoebeans (talk) 14:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pinktoebeans, the sources seem to fall into one of 3 categories, a) puff PR pieces; b) interviews (which as primary sources, don't go to notability); c) pieces which focus on her involvement in the reality show. As such I see the sourcing as the type of which is the result of a damn good PR campaign. And my apologies, my intent was not to denigrate your editing contributions. Onel5969 TT me 15:26, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - Restore to redirect to Love Island (2015 TV series). Lack of notability outside show. In addition to Onel's comments above, the claim of most successful social media influencers isn't borne out by the given source, which calls her the most successful Islander and says she earns more than any other reality TV star on Instagram (per click, but not overall). Those discrepancies aside, popularity on Instagram and sponsorship per click on that platform shows popularity, a totally different thing to notability. Being a company director isn't a claim of notability, and the "creative" element of it doesn't meet WP:NCREATIVE. --John B123 (talk) 16:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:23, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as

BBC, Standard UK, Cosmopolitan, and several significant articles on The Independent and many coverages on the Google News, so passes WP:BASIC and WP:GNG and deserves to be kept, imv. Taung Tan (talk) 07:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete under criterion G5. —C.Fred (talk) 00:22, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ethiopian National Defense Force drones

[edit]
Ethiopian National Defense Force drones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unnecessary and almost content-free page that can be covered in one or two sentences on Ethiopian National Defense Force or List of equipment of the Ethiopian National Defence Force Mztourist (talk) 08:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 08:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't understand your !vote. For what other countries do we have pages about specific weapons systems that they have purchased? Mztourist (talk) 06:19, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, we don't have pages for other countries about specific weapons systems that they have purchased, why should we make an exception for Ethiopia when we have two perfectly relevant alternative pages? Mztourist (talk) 13:13, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I don't see a consensus to draftify. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grazmach Tameru Lemma

[edit]
Grazmach Tameru Lemma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Zero sources about subject in article. Zero Google hits, apart from the article itself. Appears to fail WP:GNG. Girth Summit (blether) 06:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Girth Summit (blether) 06:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Girth Summit (blether) 06:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. Girth Summit (blether) 06:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Ethiopia, political power and the military. Ernest Cole, Maurice Botbol, Martin Bennett, Michèle Miech Chatenay, Lettre de l'océan Indien. Service des études documentaires, Banque d'information et de documentation de l'océan Indien (1985 ed.). [Paris]: [Banque d'information et de documentation de l'océan Indien]. 1985. ISBN 2-905760-01-X. OCLC 18086572.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Magnum discography. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 10:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping the Nite Light Burning

[edit]
Keeping the Nite Light Burning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Current sourcing is all primary or unreliable, WP:BEFORE brings up only unreliable sources such as ProgArchives, Last.fm, etc. No evidence that this meets WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. Hog Farm Talk 06:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 06:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:30, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strategic realism

[edit]
Strategic realism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This stub serves no purpose. This is not a prominent school of realism. If it were, it could be succinctly covered on the Realism (international relations) page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:39, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coolperson177 (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • del no significant coverage. Lembit Staan (talk) 18:10, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Realism (international relations). This is a plausible search term, but can be adequately addressed within the general article on realism. I have reviewed the comments below from North America and Cunard, including the citations, but nothing suggests that this needs a standalone article. Just because a term is used in a variety of sources does not mean that an independent article is needed. That is especially true in cases like this one - "strategic realism" is simply not a well-defined school of thought independent of "realism." The unnecessary atomization of content is generally a barrier to high-quality articles. Neutralitytalk 18:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there's nothing there. The two words have been used consecutively in a few papers, but that doesn't make it a concept. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
– Quote: "I argue that this conception of the scope of strategy is flawed and I offer a comprehensive rebuttal by working out the logic of the theories advanced by Carl von Clausewitz and Thomas Schelling."
– Another notion is to retain the article and expand it to demonstrate the topic's significance, based upon what reliable sources state about the topic. North America1000 13:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is a plethora of number of realisms that have at various points been mentioned by various people. It is impossible to write a proper Realism (international relations) article if every single new variant gets its own article. Most of the sources you list are low quality (fringe journals and fringe publishers), which do not lend support for this being a noteworthy concept within realism or within IR. 14:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snooganssnoogans (talk • contribs)
  • I wholly disagree with your notions about the reliability of the sources I provided, whereby you stated "Most of the sources you list are low quality (fringe journals and fringe publishers),". On the contrary, the sources are quite reliable (underline emphasis mine below):
  • Oxford University Press – "the largest university press in the world, and the second oldest after Cambridge University Press. It is a department of the University of Oxford and is governed by a group of 15 academics appointed by the vice-chancellor known as the delegates of the press."
  • Vikas Publishing House – "a leading name in higher education publishing, specializes in the publication of academic and reference books in the areas of engineering, management, computer science, education and humanities. Titles from Vikas are recommended in top business schools, technical universities, engineering colleges, as well as in undergraduate and postgraduate courses all over India."
  • Pearson plc – the world's "largest education company and was once the largest book publisher in the world.
  • Journal of Strategic Studies – "a peer-reviewed academic journal covering military and diplomatic strategic studies". It is published by Routledge, which "specialises in providing academic books, journals and online resources in the fields of humanities, behavioural science, education, law, and social science" and is "claimed to be the largest global academic publisher within humanities and social sciences".
  • First Global South International Studies Conference – Partner Institutions include 1) "The International Studies Association (headquartered at the University of Arizona, USA) is the largest, most respected and widely known scholarly association promoting research and education in International Relations (IR)", 2) The Global South Caucus, a unit of the International Studies Association, 3) Sciences Po Paris – Campus Moyen-Orient Méditerranée à Menton: "Sciences Po is a highly selective independent and international research university with seven campuses and collaborative arrangements with more than 400 competitive universities all over the world".
  • Ferozsons – "a Pakistani publishing company in Lahore, Pakistan. Established in 1894, it is Pakistan’s oldest publishing house."
– Sorry, but I feel that you are quite mistaken. These are certainly not "fringe" journals and publishers, nor are they "low quality", not even in the slightest.North America1000 14:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OUP, Pearsons and JSS are clearly reliable sources. The other ones are fringe. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't qualified your assertions, though, only providing proof by assertion. Merriam-Webster defines "fringe" as "a group with marginal or extremist views" (link). How on earth is Ferozsons, Pakistan's oldest publishing house, a group that is somehow "marginal or extremist"? Have you researched this company? They may not be the largest publisher in the world, but that does not automatically make them a "fringe" publisher. Regarading the International Studies Association, it is "a professional association for scholars, practitioners and graduate students in the field of international studies. Founded in 1959, ISA now has over 7,000 members in 110 countries and is the most respected and widely known scholarly association in this field". This is certainly not marginal or extremist. Rather it is the opposite of marginal, and furthermore, they publish several peer-reviewed academic journals, such as Journal of Strategic Studies listed above, as well as International Studies Quarterly, International Studies Review and International Political Sociology, among others. This is the opposite of "extremist", this is an organization that publishes and presents accurate, quality studies that are further verified and confirmed via the peer review process. Nope, not marginal, and not extremist: this is not fringe. North America1000 16:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOTDICT explains that "One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a dictionary entry..." and then goes in detail how to tell the difference. The page in question is clearly a stub, not a dictionary entry. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow for engagement with Northamerica1000's provided sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 05:59, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I have unclosed and relisted this following a discussion on my talk page. Therefore, I think this should be allowed to run for two more weeks (if necessary, obviously), even if that puts us past the typical length of an AfD. Also, an addendum to my relisting note; there is a serious argument above that a single article about Realism (international relations) is preferable to many short pieces about its varieties; I have no opinion on this question, but this can be a persuasive argument when coverage is sparse, and so I would hope to see engagement with this question as well. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

    Here are three sources Northamerica1000 provided along with quotes from the sources that demonstrate that the sources discuss strategic realism in substantial detail:

    1. Jackson, Robert H.; Sørensen, Georg (2016). Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches (6 ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 72–73. ISBN 978-0-19-870755-4. Retrieved 2021-09-01.

      The book notes: "In this section, we shall examine strategic realism, which is exemplified by the thought of Thomas Schelling (1980, 1996). ... Strategic realism focuses centrally on foreign-policy decision making. When state leaders confront basic diplomatic and military issues, they are obliged to think strategically—i.e., instrumentally—if they hope to be successful. ... This is a good example of strategic realism which basically concerns how to employ power intelligently in order to get our military adversary to do what we desire and, more importantly, to avoid doing what we fear. According to strategic realism, 'choosing between extremes' is foolish and reckless and is thus ... ... Strategic realism thus presupposes values and carries normative implications. Unlike classical realism, however, it does not examine them or explore them. ..."

    2. Khanna, V.N. International Relations, 6E. Vikas Publishing. pp. 22–23. ISBN 978-93-5338-632-0. Retrieved August 25, 2021.

      The book has a six-paragraph section titled "Thomas Schelling: Strategic Realism". The book notes: "Strategic realism, like neo-realism, is a product of the behavioural revolution of the 1950s and 1960s. Many contemporary realists seek to provide an empirical analysis of world politics. But they avoid normative analysis of international politics because that is considered subject, and thus, unscientific. Strategic realism is associated with the name of Thomas Schelling who propagated his views in 1980. Schelling's strategic realism focuses its attention on foreign policy-decision making. ... Strategic realists are basically concerned with how to employ power intelligently in order to get the adversary to do what we desire and, more importantly, to avoid doing what we fear."

    3. Chatterjee, Aneek (2010). International Relations Today: Concepts and Applications. Delhi: Longman. ISBN 978-81-317-3375-2. Retrieved 2021-09-01.

      The book notes: "Thomas Schelling, for example, came up with a newer version of realism, later identified as strategic realism. This could be considered as a part of neo-realism, which wanted to [explanation] ... Keeping the normative aspects of earlier forms of realism in the background, strategic realism tends to emphasize on empirical analytical tools for strategic thoughts. Thomas Schelling, the chief exponent of strategic realism, is well aware about the crisis-ridden contemporary world. ... While the focal point of strategic realism is the art of diplomacy and prudent strategies, neo-realism is more concerned with [explanation]. ... Schelling's strategic realism has come under attack from constructivists. No strategy, however prudent, can be free from normative values."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow strategic realism to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 21:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • As far as I can tell, the concept "Strategic realism" stems from the prominent textbook "Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches" by Sorensen and Jackson, which uses the term as a catch-all for realist theories that rely on rationalism and strategic interactions (they use Thomas Schelling's works as an example) and as a contrast to Classical realism theories that are not strategic. While this book is clearly a RS, the concept is linked near-exclusively to this book and the two authors. The other two books that you cite are not high-quality publications, and I strongly suspect that the authors (who are not prominent or well-published scholars in the field) are regurgitating what the Oxford University Press textbook says. I did a search for the concept in top journals in the field of international relations and found nothing! Isn't it absurd to have a Wikipedia article for some kind of "school of realism" that no international relations scholars of note or publications of note believe exists (outside of the formulation of one Oxford University Press textbook)? If a prominent textbook coins a term, which no other prominent scholars adopt, but a bunch of low-quality publications and non-notable scholars regurgitate – does that mean that the term reaches a notability threshold? The term "Strategic realism" is not mentioned at any point in Thomas Schelling's Wikipedia article nor in the Realism Wikipedia article (nor should the concept be mentioned in those articles), which just demonstrates how absurd this entire discussion is. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:55, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear to the closer of this discussion: What we have here is a concept that was 1. coined in a prominent textbook, 2. regurgitated by low-quality publications, and 3. never adopted by the relevant scholarly community (as demonstrated by a search in the top journals). Does every single concept that has been coined by a prominent publication and repeated by three low-quality publications deserve its own Wikipedia page? For example, there are vastly more prominent citations for the terms "Soft Realism"[130], "Hard Realism",[131] "Rationalist realism"[132] etc. than "Strategic Realism" – should every single variant and type of realism be given its own Wikipedia page? I don't think the editors above realize what a disservice it does to those of us who are busting our asses trying to improve these pages when there are a trillion pointless forks that divide and complicate all the effort, and when all the effort is diluted by the presence of misleading and deceptive pages that fool students and other interested people into thinking "Strategic realism" is a major school of international relations. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:07, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • So is the logic then that we should also create a "Hard realism", "Soft realism", "Rationalist realism", "First image realism", "Second image realism" etc article for each and every variant that has been mentioned in three sources? All these terms have been mentioned in at least a half-dozen sources. Why create a new article for each variant when there is a perfectly good Realism (international relations) article that could incorporate the variants and describe the differences? Is the goal to create a dictionary or is it create coherent sets of articles? 00:05, 7 September 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snooganssnoogans (talk • contribs)
  • The concept should not be mentioned in Realism (international relations) because it is simply not a notable concept in Realist scholarship. It's a concept coined by one textbook that has been regurgitated by several low-quality publications. Which makes it all the more absurd that it has its own Wikipedia article. If no scholars of note or publications of note believe this thing exists, why should Wikipedia mislead and deceive students and interested readers into thinking it's a prominent school of realism? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4meter4's claim that all the delete votes amount to WP:IDON'TLIKEIT is ridiculous. What the Delete votes have argued is that "Strategic realism" is one of many many many variations of "Realism (international relations)" that have been coined, and that it would be detrimental to readers and editors in this topic area if every single variation of "X Realism" gets its own article. I have provided specific examples of other variations of "X Realism" that have been covered at greater detail in RS than "Strategic realism", yet should obviously not have their own Wikipedia articles. What the Keep votes in this AFD are arguing is that Wikipedia should have countless different "X Realism" articles because a few RS exist can be found that each use a variation of the "X Realism" term. If these editors get their way, it would make it dysfunctional for those of us who are trying to fix content on Realism (international relations) and adjacent articles, a neglected topic area that none of the Delete votes in this AFD have made substantive contributions to. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:31, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand all of that, and I stand by what I said earlier about it essentially boiling down to an WP:IDON'TLIKEIT argument. Essentially, you are trying to curate the content area for Realism (international relations); which is fine as an editorial exercise but that doesn't fall under AFD's purview or process or purpose. That kind of argument can be used productively in merge discussions where we can discuss how to present and organize materials. At AFD, our scope is to examine content based upon notability guidelines and whether the content warrants inclusion, and ultimately there is clearly enough RS to support a stand alone article on strategic realism. Whether we ultimately choose to house this content somewhere else (such as at Realism (international relations)) is another matter. If your argument is we simply delete it and not address/include it at all, than that just doesn't match with WP:GNG and WP:NOTCENSORED because we have enough evidence that the topic meets our thresh hold for inclusion. I understand that this a minor concept of realism in comparison to others but it does pass GNG. We have lots of articles on notable minor concepts or even fringe theories in many academic fields because of our policy on no censorship. We have enough space on wiki to include articles on any "X Realism" that meet GNG, because that is wikipedia's policy and wikipedia is not censored. 4meter4 (talk) 17:26, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The argument that Wikipedia policy forces us to create entire articles for every single variation of a concept that has been mentioned by one reliable source and 2 low-quality sources sounds like an excellent reason to invoke WP:IGNORE. You are arguing that a topic area should be made suboptimal because one textbook coined a term and a few low-quality sources regurgitated the term – if taken to its logical endpoint, it would destroy the topic area due to the prevalence of variations of the same or overlapping concepts. "If your argument is we simply delete it and not address/include it at all, than that just doesn't match with WP:GNG and WP:NOTCENSORED" – Thomas Schelling's work (which the textbook characterizes as "Strategic realism" and which no other scholars/publications of note characterize as such) is covered in the Thomas Schelling, the Bargaining model of war, Rationalism (international relations), Deterrence theory, Coercive diplomacy and Coercion (international relations) articles. Schelling's work is not censored in any way whatsoever – I have literally written the content summarizing his work on those pages. Your call to create a "Strategic realism" article just to define the term violates WP:NOT#DICT. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If there is consensus to "keep" the term in some way or another, then I argue that the article should be merged with the Thomas Schelling article in the following way: one short sentence should be added to the Schelling article that says "Schelling's work has been characterized as "strategic realist"". However, my first preference is still to delete the article and not mention the concept on the Schelling page or any other page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC) −[reply]

(Edit conflict) I am not arguing for creating anything. It's already here. AFD is not concerned with future content but existing content, and WP:Wikipedia is not compulsory. However, you are arguing for the deletion of another editor(s)'s past contribution(s), and that should be taken seriously out of respect for that editor(s)'s work and point of view. If you feel the content is already sufficiently covered elsewhere and is therefore redundant then you should argue it's a WP:CONTENTFORK as a rationale for deletion. However, that is not the argument you made which is why you got the response that I gave you. Further, if that is the argument you want to make, we usually turn such articles into a suitable redirect where readers searching for the concept "strategic realism" can find the appropriate relevant information. Might I suggest that you make that argument and consider a potential redirect target. Perhaps the article on Thomas Schelling?4meter4 (talk) 19:29, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In reading the above merge suggestion above, it looks like Snooganssnoogans isn't wanting a merge but just a redirect because Snooganssnoogans wants to suppress the content in this article. Given that multiple independent references from highly respected academic publishers, including Thomas Schelling's own writing, support the content, I can't help but think that Snooganssnoogans has an agenda here that amounts to WP:CENSORSHIP.4meter4 (talk) 22:59, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are so many absurd remarks in your comment: (1) Please provide a citation for your claim that Thomas Schelling ever used the term "Strategic realism" to describe his own scholarship or any scholarship for that matter. You're claiming that I'm trying to censor Schelling's strategic realist scholarship – deliver on your claim. (2) I have added more content to Wikipedia about "strategic realism" (i.e. Rationalist-oriented realism and Schelling's scholarship: Bargaining model of war, Rationalism (international relations), Deterrence theory, Coercive diplomacy and Coercion (international relations)) than all the Keep votes in this AFD combined), which makes the censorship claim even more ridiculous. (3) "Multiple independent references from highly respected academic publishers" is BS. The concept "Strategic realism" was coined by the Sorenson and Jackson textbook and was regurgitated by low-quality sources and scholars who have published nothing of note. (4) Suppress what content? This is literally the entirety of what the Strategic realism article says: "Strategic realism is a theory of international relations associated with Thomas Schelling." Have you even read the article of the AFD that you're commenting on and flinging wild accusations over? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:32, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These are the sources that NorthAmerica1000 has cited for the claim that this is a notable concept and which all the Keep votes are using to justify keeping this article:

  1. Jackson and Sørensen (2016). Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches. Oxford University Press.
  2. Khanna, V.N. International Relations, 6E. Vikas Publishing House.
  3. Aneek, C. (2010). International Relations Today: Concepts and Applications. Pearson.
  4. Vennesson, Pascal (February 16, 2017). "Is strategic studies narrow? Critical security and the misunderstood scope of strategy". Journal of Strategic Studies.
  5. Chatterjee, Aneek (2012). "Theorizing the Global South in IR: Problems and Prospects*" (PDF). First Global South International Studies Conference. pp. 8–9.
  6. Shaukat, S. (2005). US Vs Islamic Militants, Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations. Ferozsons.
These citations are problematic for the following reasons:
  1. Only the Jackson and Sorenson textbook is a clear-cut RS for "Strategic Realism". The rest of the sources (not counting Vennesson) are regurgitating the contents of the Jackson and Sorenson textbook.
  2. Two of the citations are to Aneek Chatterjee who has no peer-reviewed publications of note in the field of international relations[133] and who is just regurgitating what the Sorenson and Jackson textbook says in his Pearson textbook. One of the Chatterjee citations is to a non-peer-reviewed conference paper that NorthAmerica100 mistakenly attributes as being an official publication of the International Studies Association.
  3. A non-peer reviewed book by V N Khanna, who has no peer-reviewed publications in the field of international relations. There is no mention of this person having a PhD in the field.
  4. The Vennesson article is indeed published in a respectable journal (Journal of Strategic Studies) but it doesn't support the claim that "Strategic realism" is a coherent notable concept. Vennesson doesn't describe Schelling's work as being "Strategic realism". Instead, he briefly in the conclusion of the article characterizes Raymond Aron as being a "strategic realist" – the scholarship of Aron and Schelling vastly differed, which bolsters the claim that this is an incoherent concept with no legs in the field. Vennesson uses the term "Strategic realist" in quotation marks, which should raise doubts about its status as a coherent and established school of thought.
  5. Sajjad Shaukat is not a recognized expert in the field of international relations. He does not have a PhD and has no peer-reviewed publications. The author is obviously regurgitating what the prominent Sorenson and Jackson textbook says. The book in question is barely legible. I strongly recommend that editors and the closer actually look up the part of the book that covers "Strategic realism".[134] To characterize this as a RS is absurd.
  6. In short: the sources that support the concept of "Strategic realism" are (1) a prominent Oxford University Press textbook that coins the term, (2) a good journal article that uses the term for something different than the textbook, (3) a Pearson textbook by an individual with no peer-reviewed publications of note in the field of international relations that regurgitates what the OUP textbook says, (4) a paper presented by the same individual at a conference, yet not published in a respectable outlet, (5) a non-peer reviewed book by someone with no scholarly publications in the field, and (5) a barely legible book by a non-expert in the field. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:58, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse_Singal

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

This biographical page was previously deleted due to not meeting notability requirements Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesse Singal

In the interspersing time the subject does not appear to have gained notability, going from being a Senior Editor in NYMag, to self published.

A claim to notability is a book he published, however a search of bestseller lists shows the book did not reach them and holds about 100,000# in book sales ranking with Bookmarks noting it had a tepid reception. [135]. I worry that if we gave the 100,000th top book a page, we would have to give every obscure book ranking better a page as well.

The final claim to his notability is that he was involved in a journalism controversy during 2018 which CJR briefly summarized here[136]. However it appears to have died down and he has no longer obtained publications on the subject making it appear to be a case of wp:BIO1E.

To conclude I don’t see what has changed from last time which held an overwhelming consensus for delete apart from a decline in the subjects publication prominence and a wp:BIO1E event that died down. Apart from a brief critical mention in CJR I do not see WP:SIGCOV that could meet WP:BASIC Freepsbane (talk) 03:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • As an addendum I am concerned that most of the article is wp:BIO1E with the remaining segments dedicated to his podcast and obscure book when neither are notable. If we give everyone who gets a page a large promotional section to their book, even if it was not commercially successful or notable in reception, then surely every self published author would be clamoring for a page where they can advertise their books at Wikipedia. At the very least the book section reads like vanity advertising for an obscure product and should be trimmed. To a lesser extent the section on his podcast/self publishing career is needless promotion as well, it does little but cite self published and primary sources often by authors connected to the subject. Again it concerns me that if we are too permissive with promotion, every marginally notable blogger will be getting Wikipedia puff pieces on their obscure books and blogs. Freepsbane (talk) 03:34, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would encourage all parties involved in this current iteration of the article @Newimpartial: @-sche: @Colin M: and the editors from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesse Singal @E.M.Gregory: @BigHaz: @Johnpacklambert: to contribute their wisdom to this discussion. Apologies if my grammar is poor my friends, English is not my first language.Freepsbane (talk) 03:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. wp:BIO1E does not really apply here. There is RS coverage spanning 4 years and several areas. Much of the information mentioned in the nomination (e.g. the sales figures and reception of his book) are irrelevant to WP:N. The article that was deleted in 2017 was a single ten-word sentence, so the concerns raised in that deletion discussion don't have a lot of applicability here. Also, while not a reason to keep per se, it's worth noting the article is currently linked from 17 other mainspace pages. Colin M (talk) 03:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, his previously deleted article was not ten sentences, it was essentially this but without the wp:BIO1E. Indeed in some ways it compared favorably as it did not have large sections dedicated to book promotion. I ask, can you establish he meets wp:BASIC? His book was what you held as entitling him to an article however it’s very obscure and instead of qualifying him it is receiving promotion. Is it his publication prominence as muckrack says he’s had almost zero articles published in the last two years? Or is it merely a few primary sources from a wp:BIO1E that died down. If the later is all we have then our article is possibly less viable than last times. Also many of those 17 sources you note are self published (his own blog has to provide biographical detail as he is too obscure for a paper of record [137][138] the podcast source is a link to his Patreon[139]), and the remainder by authors who say they have social ties to him(Walker is said to be in arguments with him, Gillespie who wrote a promotional piece was according to muckrack his Reason editor[140]). They are primary sources and often part of the story.Freepsbane (talk) 04:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:BIO1E is about whether a person deserves an article separate from some other notable event, which doesn't apply here. Between commentary on the Atlantic article, commentary on his writing, and reviews of his book, WP:GNG is met. An AfD from years ago on a much shorter article and book sales numbers are irrelevant. There is no need to worry about some sort of precedent being set when we already have GNG and the like to guide us. Crossroads -talk- 04:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect I don’t see how WP:GNG is met, Criterion one falls so short Singal’s biography and self published sites have to makeup much of the article, the controversy articles describe that single event but little else. Criterion 3 and 5 is failed, we lack secondary sources and worse yet, many are not independent either from people who are related to his disputes, or his editor from Reason. What we have to build from is either limited to the incident or self published or not independent. It does not seem a foundation for an article.Freepsbane (talk) 05:15, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would be grateful if you could enlighten me as to what writing? Muckrack shows minimal publications in the last two years. As for the book, which reviews? There are many non notable books with mixed reviews[141] out there. And most sold much better. In fact, many best seller list books did not get a Wikipedia page? Should give them one?Freepsbane (talk) 04:26, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is he notable then? He has minimal publications and no notability that could meet wp:BASIC. Even his biography has to quote his own websites.Freepsbane (talk) 04:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I believe he is. That's why I !voted "keep". Colin M (talk) 04:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe that is good, if you can give examples that is even better. Instead of taking it on faith, tell us how he is notable? I can’t see signs of any publication notability, and the book is not notable, so surely it must be more than the primary sources from one event.Freepsbane (talk) 05:09, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 05:05, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 05:05, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 05:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain / comment: as I said on the talk page last month, the article is very borderline. I looked last year for sources to see if I could create an article, and didn't find enough that I felt the notability guidelines were met. Even now, after someone else did create the article, a fifth of its (limited) references being Singal himself is not great, and it puts a cap on how detailed the article is able to be, but I've seen other articles at about this level judged to meet GNG, so... -sche (talk) 08:20, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The subject has established notability and significant coverage is cited and there is more coverage found in the search engines. However, no honorary mentions or awards in mass media, nor any demonstration of impact and major contributions to his industry. Multi7001 (talk) 18:44, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:45, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 BRSCC National Formula Ford 1600 season

[edit]
2021 BRSCC National Formula Ford 1600 season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Incredibly minor event that does not appear to meet the WP:GNG. Only one (probably) independent source (Formula Scout) whose suitability for usage on Wikipedia has been called into question by other editors in other discussions. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 22:13, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 22:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, while Formula Scout is a good source for additional detail, I do not believe it can be used to establish notability. Sources as they stand do not pass GNG, and a Google search does not return any significant coverage. As an aside, there appears to be a great deal of articles on minor motorsport series which unambiguously fail GNG (such as this one), and a fair few which could easily pass but are incredibly poorly-sourced (e.g. most FIA F4 seasons) and do not contain additional information beyond results tables.
    5225C (talk • contributions) 02:01, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 arguments made against the sources provided by Eastmain have remained uncontested. Sandstein 08:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Dolgoff

[edit]
Gene Dolgoff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. Much of the content of the article is unsourced, and there are no citations to any coverage in reliable independent sources. At present the article contains tags about sourcing dated 2016, but questions have been raised repeatedly over a much longer time than that. A PROD was made in 2010, but contested. A large proportion of the editing of the article has been done by a small number of single-purpose accounts, at least some of which appear to have a conflict of interest (including an account named Gdolgoff). JBW (talk) 08:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:58, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those "good references" are as follows. The "Insider" article has a single two sentence mention of Dolgoff. In fact the complete and unabridged text about Dolgoff is "Inventor Gene Dolgoff had been working on creating the first LCD projector since the 1960s. Finally, in 1987, Dolgoff improved upon his design and patented it, creating the company Projectavision, Inc." "ScreenRant" has even less than that: a one sentence mention. The"ComputerWorld" article has one short paragraph about Dolgoff. The "Looper" article has several mentions of Dolgoff spread over a few paragraphs, but it is a very small proportion of the whole, and is not substantial coverage. In short, the "good references" do nothing to show notability. (In fact, if those are the best that can be found by an editor who has been here for 15 years and made over 40000 edits, and for whom voting "keep" in numerous AfD discussions is one of his main activities, then it suggests that there isn't much to be found, because if anyone could find it, he could.) JBW (talk) 19:53, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Already from the start of the article on WP, the claim was made that Dolgoff is the inventor of digital projection. Later, the more specific claim was made that Dolgoff started experimenting and thinking about LCD projectors in 1968. This was repeated in a video on YouTube showing an interview with Dolgoff and drawings as well as a patent publication in the background. The title of this video is: The inventor of the LCD projector. There is no reliable, independent evidence supporting this claim. Early related work by researchers at RCA Labs and Bell Labs used LCDs for experimental projection was based on electronbeam or laser addressing. Publications appeared from 1968 onwards. Having the idea of using LCDs for projection at that time was nothing extraordinary. However, making working prototypes was a challenge not tried by Dolgoff before 1983. To my knowledge, Peter J. Wild at Brown Boveri was first to implement a digital LCD projector using a modified conventional projector in 1971 (see LCD projector). If the rest of the article is based on similar misleading information, I vote for Delete.--BBCLCD (talk) 08:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Joe (talk) 07:17, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DNALinux

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

Article fails WP:GNG and lacks third-party reliable sources. Mentions by third-parties online are trivial. Aoidh (talk) 09:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Aoidh (talk) 09:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:01, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Murphy (actress)

[edit]
Jill Murphy (actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable actor. Subject fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NACTOR. Article has been tagged for notability concerns for some time, and recently PRODed. While the reasons for the PROD were not sustained (and I agree with the PROD removal), I think an AfD discussion/decision is warranted. From the extensive WP:BEFORE exercises undertaken by MIDI (and indeed my own searches), it would seem that we barely have enough reliable/verifiable sources to support the limited text we have. And none to support notability. (All of the available sources seem to be the same trivial passing mentions we might expect for any "jobbing" actor (cast lists, production stills, etc). And these all just about confirm that the subject has had a number of (with every respect) "bit parts" in soaps, mini-series, etc. Nothing to indicate the "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, [etc]" expected by NACTOR.) There is no coverage of the subject in news (even acting industry news) articles. Subject has not been subject of any biographical coverage, no evidence of awards or anything else we might expect to differentiate this subject from any other similar "jobbing" actor... Guliolopez (talk) 16:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 17:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 17:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Admire Kasi

[edit]
Admire Kasi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails WP:NMUSIC. Most sources are either announcements or unrelated/not connected to the subject failing WP:GNG. Xclusivzik (talk) 21:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:30, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:30, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:51, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The creator of the event isn’t notable. He hasn’t gained much significant coverage in reliable sources to clearly pass WP: GNG. And, if sources are mostly about the event, they wouldn't show notability for him. -Xclusivzik (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Apple Arcade games

[edit]
List of Apple Arcade games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Generally, WP:NOTCATALOG. See for example past such list AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Steam games (2nd nomination). While we do list games by hardware platform, we have avoided games by storefront since this is basically just a storefront catalog. Theknine2 (talk) 21:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would agree if this article were a List of App Store games, however Apple Arcade is for the most part a separate service which happens to be housed within the App Store and is not itself a storefront. This list only includes Apple Arcade original titles, which are often exclusive to the service with only a few games having a PC/console release and Apple holding mobile exclusivity for all Arcade titles. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Steam games (2nd nomination) points out how the games on the List of Xbox Live Arcade games are only available through the service and have features which tie in with 360 hardware, which also applies here as a majority of the games outlined in this list have been designed or ported specifically with Apple Arcade in mind. Mitchdog72 (talk) 02:40, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Xbox Live Arcade games currently redirects to the main List of Xbox 360 games, with XBLA titles being noted in a column in the complete list of 360 titles. Hence, your justification regarding List of Xbox Live Arcade games is not valid. I'd like to point out the recent Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_EA_Play_games as well, since that was similarly a separate service which itself does not have a storefront, though in this case EA Play does not have any exclusive titles. Theknine2 (talk) 07:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

s

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although numerous, none of the "keep" arguments are substantive 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tofan Pirani

[edit]
Tofan Pirani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

an advertisement of a non notable athlete fails WP:GNG. MMA Kid (talk) 19:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because we have found out he fought for the WKN world title. https://www.fightermag.se/2013/01/17/varldsmastar-titelmatch-i-k1-tungvikt-for-wkn-for-supremacy-league/ .karellian-24 (talk) 10:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)— .karellian-24 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:00, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:00, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:00, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:00, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There has been no discussion as to whether the sources in the article or the presented sources are actually GNG - so let's have this more thoroughly discussed...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:02, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The 2013 source given above is routine match hype with no in-depth coverage of the subject. The fact that no one has uncovered discussion of the actual match is a pretty good clue that either it didn't happen or it wasn't important enough to report on. No other GNG sources have been provided. JoelleJay (talk) 18:34, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can find no evidence that the WKN title fight between Pirani and Dasic ever occurred. The Swedish fight magazine that announced the fight and later promoted ticket sales has no listing of the fight results. Additional evidence that the announced fight probably never occurred is that Pirani lost to Bob Sapp (his only victory in a string of 14 kickboxing fights) on February 2 of that year and had to withdraw from that fight because of he hurt his leg kicking Sapp. That was just 3 weeks before the proposed title fight was to occur. The burden of proof is on those who claim notability, so unless someone can provide proof from a reliable source that this fight actually occurred, I have to vote to delete this article because there is nothing else that shows Pirani is WP notable. Papaursa (talk) 14:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the coverage and titles are enough to show notability. He won WKN Asian Championship in 2016. He won WBL Asian Championship in 2019. He has defeated Stefan Leko in WKO K Legend 2014. He has defeated Jorgen Himmerstal in K-1 Scandinavia 2002. Also the Persian media covered his fights. Moreover, the result of AFDs in French and Persian Wikipedia was "Keep" without any deletion votes. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 15:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What happens at other WP sites has no impact on English WP since they may have different notability criteria. The titles you mention don't meet WP:NKICK and notability isn't derived from your competitors. Can you reference significant independent coverage of him that isn't routine sports reporting to show WP:GNG is met? Do you have any evidence he actually fought for the WKN world championship? Papaursa (talk) 18:37, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Papaursa No, they don't have different criteria. I think two Asian championships are enough for notability. The sources are also abundant. [142], [143], [144]. I want .karellian-24 to participate in the ongoing discussion. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 12:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong if you think different language WPs all have the same notability criteria. The new sources you list qualify as routine sports reporting, not significant coverage. Repeating the same source doesn't make him any more notable and your opinion about what's notable is less important than the actual existing WP notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 12:35, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He fought for the world title twice, and not just once. If you want to google it it' enough. Plus he doesn't lack coverage. Regards, KarelRo .karellian-24 (talk) 13:44, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I found two cases where he was scheduled to fight and pulled out due to injuries, but no world championship results for him from an organization that is listed at WP:NKICK. I asked for verification before and still haven't seen any. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but my searches didn't find it. Since GNG trumps SNG (which just provides a presumption of notability), I'll also settle for significant independent coverage (which is not fight results and announcements). Papaursa (talk) 18:20, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Papaursa [145], [146] and [147] are sources showing that he had fought for the world title. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 19:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but all of those are fight announcements, not results. In addition, Shin Do and the Thai World Cup are not on the list at WP:NKICK. The other one is the one where he got injured against Sapp 3 weeks before the bout. Papaursa (talk) 00:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Papaursa (talk) 18:20, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Papaursa [148], [149] and [150]Can You please get your facts right before you write . This is the Second time you mentioned this regarding he’s leg injury before the title fight.He fought Bob sapp feb 2002 and the title fight was feb 2003 so that’s one year after Martial.Arts21 (talk) 08:03, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And here is the link. So stop please write personal opinions.

You are correct about the date. I was wrong about that, but not about him being Sapp's only victory in a string of 14 matches. That's hardly a show of dominance. Your failure to provide any reliable proof of notability means your view is opinion, while mine is based of WP notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 12:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Brand new editor and he's the third one to mention the same article. A fight announcement is not proof the fight actually took place. Where is your evidence he meets WP:NICK or WP:GNG? Restating the same claims of events that fail to meet WP:NKICK, and the failure to provide significant sources, seems to indicate there's difficulty in making a claim of WP notability for Pirani. Papaursa (talk) 12:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Tofan pirani is one of the biggest names in Sweden as a kickboxing He was the first swedish fighter ever competed in k-1 Japan and since then he’s been fighting all around the world In major organisations — Preceding unsigned comment added by L.m.johansson (talk • contribs) 11:03, 7 September 2021 (UTC)— L.m.johansson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]


Keep because we have found out he fought for the WKN world title. https://www.fightermag.se/2013/01/17/varldsmastar-titelmatch-i-k1-tungvikt-for-wkn-for-supremacy-league And has a resume on reputable sites https://www.tapology.com/fightcenter/fighters/101234-tofani-pirani-persian-warrior https://boxrec.com/en/proboxer/913204

http://k-1sport.de/en/database/show_fighter.php?id=417

His Wikipedia in Persian: https://fa.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/طوفان_پیرانی

News on Iranian sites: https://khabarrazmavar.ir/?p=728 Amiir.masterr (talk) 09:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)— Amiir.masterr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The ISNA link is not about him. The subject of article must be about him to be cited. The Khabar Razmavar also not on the Iranian news sources. Persian Wikipedia is based on English Wikipedia. If the English Wikipedia is deleted, it will also be nominated for deletion. However, we are only discussing the English page here. Regards. MMA Kid (talk) 11:22, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is getting ridiculous. Another new user claiming the same fight announcement article as proof of Pirani's world championship credentials. Appearing in databases does not show significant independent coverage nor does the article about Hoost. I hope an admin closes this soon, but I'm done waiting for people to provide actual proof of notability and making up their own criteria. Papaursa (talk) 11:56, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Dear ones, please give your opinion and do not insult anyone Managers see these comments. Amiir.masterr (talk) 15:38, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Papaursa, There is other brand new. How is it possible that an athlete with all these claimed titles does not even have a credible source according based on WP:News sources? It is deserve WP:CSD G2 tag as soon as possible. Regards. MMA Kid (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can see the titles of this boxer on the following site: https://www.tapology.com/fightcenter/fighters/101234-tofani-pirani-persian-warrior

And a few videos of his struggles on YouTube: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MPXGV5Fz4aQ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IJvO2M6I3jQ https://m.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=-8Xz8FpJib8 Amiir.masterr (talk) 17:51, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nodir Buke Chaad

[edit]
Nodir Buke Chaad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable film, no significant coverage from WP:RS, no significant review or anything. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NFILM. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sonny Moore Power Ratings

[edit]
Sonny Moore Power Ratings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found no significant coverage or even reliable coverage. SL93 (talk) 00:34, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 05:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_September_2&oldid=1043429941"