Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 June 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< June 18	June 20 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. czar 22:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ereğli Özel Yıldırım Lisesi

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

Not notable per WP:NHS. — Pamphylian ● 💬 20:49, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — Pamphylian ● 💬 20:49, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. — Pamphylian ● 💬 20:49, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless someone can provide WP:THREE in-depth, secondary references (I couldn't find any myself) and use them to write a notable article, this is an obvious fail of the guidelines. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find reliable sources about the school in Turkish. Therefore I think this school isn't notable. Uncitoyen (talk) 14:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ahmetlii (talk) 08:17, 26 June 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. Very poor quality of "keep" opinions, bit still no consensus to delete. Sandstein 06:48, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mattias Adolfsson

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

Swedish ilustrator. Great work, but I don't think the coverage meets GNG. There are some articles in Juxtapoz, and a few interviews scattered around. A search found little else. Many of the available sources are primary, for example theArctic Paper source is for a paper company. --- Possibly (talk) 03:01, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 03:01, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 03:01, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 03:01, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly Notable Clearly meets the requirements for notability. Published works in mainstream Magazines and Newspapers in multiple countries, Swedish Book award for one of five published books (not self published!) and Album covers for high visibility bands. Yes, the documentation can be improved. Arctic Paper is not a sponsor or even the brand Adolfsson uses. The links to the Album covers should be enough to establish credibility. ---User:Aggie80

Aggie80, I think you use "notable" here in the conventional sense, not Wikipedia's idiosyncratic use. The general notability guideline suggests that significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, establishes that a subject is notable. In the context of an artist or illustrator, that it not that their work is published in the New Yorker, but that the New Yorker publishes an article about the person and their work. Interviews are not considered independent. We don't really care what a subject has to say about themselves, we care what other people have to say. Winning an award that itself received significant coverage would also establish notability. It is not clear to me that the AI award does that; I can't tell if Adolfsson won it. I am also not entirely sure that the "prestigious Most Beautiful Swedish Book award by the Swedish Bonkkonst[sic]" is really that, but I assume hifructose mean , which might count towards notability, as referenced in capdesign. I also think that the mymodernmet article might be significant and independent but I'm less sure about "Joe" writing for tattoodo. The interviews may be useful for filling in some minor details, but don't help to establish notability. I suspect there might be better coverage of the subject, but haven't done an extensive search yet. I'll have a good look later. Vexations (talk) 12:15, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:52, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lovely work, but not notable as per guidelines. No significant reviews, exhibitions or influence on form presented. Mattias Unfiltered: The Sketchbook Art of Mattias Adolfsson is a thing, but it has resulted in no review, commentary or coverage, for instance. So we fail WP:NARTIST and WP:NAUTHOR. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He has three other published books as well, one of which was selected for a major display in Sweden and entered into an international competition.The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk)

Keep Works featured in eight page spread in Sketching from the Imagination: An Insight into Creative Drawing from 3dtotal Publishing to inspire other artists. Reference added. Provided artwork for the latest Wheezer album, rated by Heaviest of Art as one of the top album covers of 2021. Dig also selected the cover as one of the top 10 of 2021. The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 20:14, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significant coverage exists. Although not from major publications, there is enough to meet notability guidelines IMO. Peter303x (talk) 00:35, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seddon ^talk 20:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Easily meets WP:GNG. Bungstnk (talk) 22:37, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of reliable sources are present, article is notable too.Aloolkaparatha (talk) 06:38, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Haters are always going to hate. stay safe

and in positive vibes let me post a piece, by: Mr/ Mattias Adolfsson, a Swedish graphic artist and illustrator]]

(work by:)Mattias Adolfsson, a Swedish graphic artist and illustrator

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Finco Services Inc

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

Unable to find significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, GermanKity (talk) 03:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 03:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 03:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 03:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 03:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is pretty vacuous promo blurb (we don't need to know board membership, patent applications, etc.!) and the sources are all primary. That said, there are a couple of articles in WSJ 1 2, the latter of which says the company has 2M customers, so might be more noteworthy than appears at first. There could be more sources to be found by searching with the trading name 'Current', but that's quite a tricky search term, of course. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this article survives the AfD, it should be moved to 'Finco Services' without the 'Inc', per WP:NCCORP. Or perhaps it should be moved to 'Current (bank)' or some such instead? --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The "in the news" section of company's website shows plenty of coverage. Some articles are just mentions, but they have been the main focus of several CNBC and WSJ articles. JBchrch talk 11:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide WP:THREE. GermanKity (talk) 12:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. Wall Street Journal, Current Joins Mobile-Banking Boom With $131 Million Tiger Global-Led Round, [1]]; 2. CNBC, Digital bank Current sees ‘insane’ growth during pandemic [2]; 3. CNBC Digital bank Current triples valuation in five months to $2.2 billion after Andreessen takes stake [3] Middleground1 (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wall Street Journal is an announcement/PR about the company hence failed WP:ORGIND. And the other two references from CNBC are also the announcement/PR, failed WP:ORGIND. GermanKity (talk) 05:37, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Author's comments and questions

Thank you sincerely for starting this discussion. A couple comments on the above comments, and this is not to at all to be contentious – more of a learning op for me and explanation of what was going on in my head.

I guess my first question is how this might not be neutral. I agree with the comment that listing its board members is dubious. I was on the fence. Ultimately, I decided that if the place is privately held and privately funded, and it’s also being run by venture capitalists, a researcher might want to know that. (Full disclosure – I did not research the venture cap firms, it just seemed like the right call to back up the privately funded thing).
As for sources, I was careful to check that the third-party sources weren’t just cribbing from the company’s own press releases. I think that Dunn and Bradstreet, CrunchBase, Bloomberg, the United States Patent Office and the Security and Exchange Commission are credible sources. As for Yahoo! Finance and Financial Letter – well, perhaps I should have investigated their credibility, but I seem to see them used a lot around Wikipedia.
As for moving it to a page that doesn’t have the “Inc” – all for that. Looking around the web, I couldn’t even get verification as to whether there was a period after the “c” … Moving it to “Current (bank)” is the best idea, but I didn’t think that a subsidiary (in this case Current) could have a page when a parent company (in this case Finco) doesn’t.
As for patents, I’d be up for removing it. My reason for including it was twofold: first, this company is apparently among the emerging group of “fintech” organizations, which to my understanding are a combination of financial services and software development -- and there should be a mention of how they are in the software arena; second, their patent pending is something I’ve never heard of before – individuals being able to make money from selling their personal data just as corporations have been selling for eons without giving customers a cut. I’ve heard debates about that, but never stumbled upon a patent application for something that does just that. So, it seemed valuable. Sidebar: it's really not out of the ordinary to mention the assets of a financial institution, including intellectual property.

Well, I didn’t set out to do a promo, I can really attest to that with complete honesty. Two days ago, I saw an ad for them on the NYC Subway and wondered who they were, looked them up on Wikipedia, and they weren’t here, and then I saw online that they have millions of users and half a billion dollars in capital. So, I figured I should investigate further and give them an article here. I have no idea if they are a credible (as in good or bad) organization, but they seem notable.

Should you choose to delete, that’s fine. If you don’t, I’ll continue working on it. But either way, please, if you will, let me know where the thinking I wrote out above was flawed. Maybe the article is horrible, but I want to learn where my decisions and logic was off. I want to contribute more here, and rely on feedback. Middleground1 (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Per WP:PATENTS the patents can be used as a RS in the context of the invention they describe. They don't support the notability of the owner. CrunchBase is not a RS. Anybody can register a CB profile and publish unverified information. I recommend removing CB and adding TechCrunch [4] Dr.KBAHT (talk) 21:21, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means: nothing that relies entirely on company information or announcements or interviews, etc, there must be independent opinion/analysis etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. They are either advertorial "profile" pieces which rely on interviews and information provided by the company or short articles based on an "announcement" by the company - all of the articles I can find are within the company's echo chamber and I have been unable to find any "Independent Content" as per ORGIND. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. has WSJ coverage here. You can't get any bigger coverage than WSJ. Peter303x (talk) 00:18, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- We are also required to look at the content and NCORP guidelines requires that it meets certain criteria. An article that relies entirely on an announcement of funding and a short interview with Mr. Sopp and without providing any independent analysis/opinion fails to establish notability, regardless of which publication it features in. Every sentence in that article is attributed to either the company or to Mr. Sopp therefore it fails WP:ORGIND specifically. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seddon ^talk 20:08, 19 June 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:47, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathon Sharkey

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

Nomination on behalf of another user, who added their request at Special:Diff/1028085275, copied below for reference:

After emailing with a Wiki Volunteer,
I move to have this article deleted. This article has not been updated with new information in years. Though, 2 years ago, a Wiki Volunteer added numerous new articles.
Here is a article from last week
https://www.observernews.net/2021/06/03/ruskin-man-hopes-to-develop-hockey-training-in-ukraine/
I am not going to add your codes, because I do not do codes.
The page says I am a Perennial Candidate. Do you know what the word means? Ralph Nader and Jill stein have run for more offices than me. And I have not ran for any office in 10 years.
This page is simply bias. Read the TALK section. People saying I was never in the Army. When I am medically retired with a INDEF Military ID Card.
Remember, I live in Florida. You may want to read our laws about Big Tech silencing Conservatives...
I am not even Luciferian anymore. I go to a Ukrainian Orthodox Church. God and I made peace... We cool...
We all know, Wiki and I have a conflict of interest... Therefore, the article must be deleted... No matter the fact, I am still in the public eye
and the media writes about me... — Preceding unsigned comment added by HockeyRacer (talk • contribs) 19:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Primefac (talk) 19:20, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 19:20, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per prior nominations. This is not the first time the subject has requested the article's deletion, and each prior time consensus has been that he is notable enough to warrant an article. Wikipedia is not censored based on a subject's preference. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:39, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:SIGCOV. The article is well referenced, and is presented as neutrally as possible. While I can sympathize with the desire to correct factual errors in the article or update content that is no longer accurate, the fact remains that Sharkey is a public figure who ran for political office multiple times. I would support removing the content being objected to in this letter. There's no reason we have to include the Luciferian content in the article, and we can certainly reframe the summation of his career in the lead to make it clear he has not been politically active in a decade. Those aren't valid reasons for deletion.4meter4 (talk) 19:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:45, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:47, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:47, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has SIGCOV in multiple RS satisfying WP:GNG. WP:NOTCENSORED Mztourist (talk) 09:02, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Draftify~~ Article, a biography, appears to be outdated, needs Wikipedia:MEDDATE to conform to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Until such time, should be draft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djflem (talk • contribs) 09:42, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We don't draft articles because they are out of date; we simply update them. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:37, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe "we" should since: Wikipedia:The deadline is now, especially with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and this article has not been in some time.Djflem (talk) 20:26, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly notable person. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:35, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG, we can't be deleting articles because someone claiming to be the subject is unhappy with what's sourced in it.★Trekker (talk) 11:42, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify As someone from outside, who doesn't know Sharkey, the WP article looks plain weird in the light of the Observernews article, to the extent that I briefly wondered whether they referred to the same person. Clearly the current article is wildly out-of-date. The article is always going to be problematic. If you remove the Luciferian stuff as per @Presidentman: (which seems sensible) then you end up with a rather feeble article. Viewed strictly, he's not notable as a politician (doesn't matter how many times you stand, or what for, you have to get in to be in, or at least lose in a history-changing way); he's probably not notable as a musician; he's not notable for his run-ins with the law (which are very far from changing the course of legal history); being a Luciferian who drinks blood makes someone unusual but not notable (where else but WP do you get a chance to write that?), so you're left with two possible reasons for being notable: as a wrestler and as a source of hot gossip for the press. And the problematic bit is that if you remove Luciferian etc. the hot gossip bit's gone, and you're left with just an ex-wrestler, wannabe hockey coach. Is that enough professional sport to make him notable? I see @Lee Vilenski:'s point, but here's the dilemma: an encyclopaedia is worthless if it's so outdated as to be misleading, but you can't force anyone to update this page (I'm not going to waste my time on it), and if no one can be bothered to update it, that implies no one really cares who John Sharkey is, which in turn implies he's not, in a public sense, notable. Hence I'd say draftify and delete if no one actually updates. Elemimele (talk) 12:56, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have a very fundamental misunderstanding of what notable means. I'm not sure where Presidentman has expressed that we should be removing sourced content from this article, and there is WP:NODEADLINE for this article to be updated. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:08, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake, it wasn't Presidentman, it was 4meter4. I'm willing to accept that as a newbie here my opinion may be completely misguided so I'll withdraw it. Also I'm writing from a place under European rules so he may have been Google-forgotten here, which makes him look less than he is/was. But we owe it to the guy that any article about him is accurate, and updated as necessary. Elemimele (talk) 15:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Maybe I'm missing something, but I really don't see how he's clearly notable after a source review? We don't typically keep articles on candidates who have failed to win, and while we sometimes keep perennial candidates, they would generally have lots of coverage. I see a lot of FEC campaign filings and local interest/"and finally..." news articles in the article, and not a lot of coverage from someone who's either a wrestler or a serious candidate who's notable enough to have a stand-alone article. As an example, he's only briefly mentioned in the 2012 primary article and the 2006 gubernatorial election article. Per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, what I see here is a page about a relatively unknown, private individual who's requested it to be deleted. We should respect that. SportingFlyer T·C 18:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have to agree with the user above, I feel that WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE should be taken into account here, and a large chunk of the sources in the article are FEC records and candidate listings that don't afford him any specific significant coverage per WP:POLITICIAN. Additionally, concerning his other career as a wrestler, the article as-is does not give us a strong case for WP:ATHLETE either. Finally, I think it's important to note that when dealing with BLP issues, the deadline is now; consideration of the effect of an article on its living subject is a standard here per WP:BLP and not something that can simply be rebuked by citing WP:NOTCENSORED. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 19:17, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails Wikipedia:MUSICBIO, Wikipedia:NPOL,Wikipedia:ATHLETE Djflem (talk) 21:02, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very clearly meets WP:GNG as he has had extensive news coverage for a wide variety of incidents. If there are errors, those should definitely be fixed, but this person definitely qualifies for an article. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:14, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nihonjoe: Can you be more specific about the incidents that are referring to that are not Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill, keeping in mind that Wikipedia:NOTNEWS? Djflem (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in the article is remotely "run of the mill". Go read the article and the references that support it. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:00, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nihonjoe: I've read it and edited it. That's why I'm asking what you would consider notable "incidents" that are worthy of encyclopedic coverage. Djflem (talk) 21:39, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seddon ^talk 19:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per SportingFlyer. I've been watching and dithering over this for a while; ultimately, I'm inclined to say the subject just isn't someone where a Wikipedia article must exist. There's also the consideration that (taking the subject at face value) the article seems to have outright false/outdated statements for which the sources to update don't exist -- I'm hesitant to keep a BLP in that position. At the very least, we'll avoid having like thirteen of these nominations, and I don't think there's enough notability here to overcome the ethical "subject doesn't want this" consideration. Vaticidalprophet 05:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SportingFlyer and Vaticidalprophet. This is a case of borderline notability, not strong or solid enough to overcome the subject's objections. WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE applies here, IMO. No objection to to a redirect, if there is an appropriate target to direct it to. Sal2100 (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DO YOU KNOW WHAT IS FUNNY... If you DELETE this article, you will only have to redo it from the beginning, when I officially become the Ball Hockey Commissioner of Ukraine with the ISBHF... Read the newest articles... I can't write about myself. I answer now to a higher sports authority... Do as you want! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HockeyRacer (talk • contribs) 01:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage of Mr. Sharkey amounts to "et us find the most bizarre thing out there to spiece up the news with". There is nothing about him that actually passes notability. Being a no change at all, not effecting the outcome of the election candidate for various offices does not make one notable, nor does being a low draw person paid to engage in the show business activitiy dubbed "wrestling" make someone notable. Unless we want to make Wikipedia a catalogue of everyone who has ever had a news article published about them on a slow news day, there is no reason to have an article on him. If there is not a "what Wikipedia is not" criteria that excludes him, there ought to be, because he is in no way actually notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find it hard to believe a lot of the stuff in this article was ever meant to be more than a joke. Just because newspapers need to fill clumn space and push out some product does not mean we should always take them at face value and repeat clearly not verrified claims as if they are verrified. That is what a lot of the content of this article ends up being. This is one case where teating newspaperfs as secondary sources instead of primary sources ends up being unwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly meets GNG based on multiple stories, devoted solely to covering this individual, from major news outlets. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:40, 28 June 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 06:50, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bagha Model High School

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

Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES "following a February 2017 RFC, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist, and are still subject to WP:N and WP:ORG." Other than some listing site, I didn't found any significant coverage in reliable sources about this school. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 19:43, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the nominator states secondary schools are not presumed to be notable just because they exist and therefore have to pass NORG. Which this one clearly doesn't. Since all the available references on it are the kind of trivial, WP:MILL coverage that every school out there gets. The only thing that might be (emphasis on "might") is the regional coverage their students got for planting trees. That said, Wikipedia isn't a news source and I don't think "students of a school plant some trees" is enough on it's own for a passable article anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:03, 21 June 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 06:52, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jagan Timilsina

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

Fails WP:GNG; WP:NATH the main event proposed for notability here is not a recognised event as per guidelines. Mail and Guardian coverage are incidental mentions as the journalists' tour guide. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although regrettably so. Interesting character, but does not meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:44, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, some major issues have been fixed and some strong evidences have been added. Jagan is a very prominent character among Nepalese trail runners, mountaineers and outdoor instructors, and I sincerely hope his account gets approved. Sajankc (talk) 14:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:56, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He definitely passes WP:GNG.BiggySmoov (talk) 05:57, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:14, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Although relisted twice, I see no reason why the character wouldn't pass WP:GNG. I mean, he has quite a good notability and is featured in major news sources in Nepal. The Kathmandu Post and The Himalayan Times are alone enough as they're two of the largest newspapers in Nepal. Also, his mention in The Guardian is way more than just a mention. I hope someone who really understands WP:GNG goes through the article and references again and takes a final decision. Sajankc (talk) 14:01, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Struck duplicate 'keep' !vote. Daniel (talk) 03:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject doesn't pass WP:GNG. The feature length texts are interviews or repackaged interviews and don't feel sufficiently independent from the subject. They are in between a human-interest narrative and a promotional success story, that seem to appear at the time of the subject's increased involvement with various projects. The Guardian article presents the subject as part of a tapestry of local people, all effectively serving as a backdrop to the main theme of "authentic trekking". Only very small portions from this coverage could be used in an article, which is already reflected in the article's current form which doesn't look very legitimate, and I don't know how one would even go about improving it. — Alalch Emis (talk) 11:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. 1. Interview type articles aren't really forbidden by Wikipedia. 2. If you read properly those articles aren't totally primary sources. Sources are reliable and nationally revered, independently written. 3. There are enough other references to prove the subject is a notable trail runner, mountaineer and outdoor instructor. 4. A quick Google search is also going to give anyone enough idea about the notability of the subject. Sajankc (talk) 13:33, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Alalch Emis. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 03:17, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "All biographies of living people (BLP) must have at least one source that supports a statement about the subject, or else it can be proposed for deletion." -Wikipedia on Proposed deletion of biographies of living people. At least one, there are at least four fully secondary and reliable.

Sajankc (talk) 05:14, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Could you please constrain your comments to a either a entry or in direct respond to others comments. Seddon ^talk 19:07, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

^[1] }}^[2]^[3] ^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]

References

^ "Jagan Timilsina". TRAIL RUNNING NEPAL. 29 November 2020. Retrieved 2020-02-03.
^ "Sardars (Renewed)". Nepal Mountaineering Association. Retrieved 2021-05-25.
^ "Full List of Mount Everest Climbers". High Adventure Expeditions. Retrieved 2021-05-25.
^ "भ्यू फ्रम मर्दी हिमाल". Dhorpatan. Retrieved 2021-06-04.
^ "Great Himal Race 2017". Les Chevaliers du Vent Courir le Ciel. Retrieved 2020-02-03.
^ "Great Himal Race 2017". Trails by Endurance. Retrieved 2021-05-29.
^ "Ultra Everest 135 Race Report". Ultra Runner Magazine. 7 March 2021. Retrieved 2021-05-25.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seddon ^talk 19:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Has significant indepth coverage. Keep ~ Yeti Dai (talk) 15:18, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is funny that how WP:GNG is quoted by both keeper and delete voters. Anyway, according to the references, he won some major athletic competition which is covered in english, french and nepali newspapers, so there is a WP:SIGCOV. Though there is no single "wholesome" article about him, but the cumulative mentions in various articles points to his contribution and general notability. nirmal (talk) 05:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I feel what you're saying, but arriving to in-depth coverage in a "cumulative" manner means that we would be originally synthesizing notability, which is why your idea is not compatible with the general conception of notability. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:39, 29 June 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 2021 United Kingdom census#Legal challenge to 'What is your Sex' guidance. Sandstein 11:11, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Play For Women

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

This is a group which have only appeared in the news in relation to minor campaigning issues related to other issues, they also bought a few judicial reviews which got some media coverage. The cases in and of themself should have articles if they are notable court cases. The subject area they operate within is very controversial and generate hysterical media coverage of minor events. This does though not establish the wider notability of this organisation. The article has relied upon primary sources ~~and a now depreciated source~~. While people who agree and disagree with their political stance may consider them to be notable there is not an establishment of wider notability of this group outside of bringing some newsworthy court cases which have not gone beyond being news reporting and have not established notability for this group. If this group is deemed to be notable it would substantially lower the bar for groups of any flavour to be considered notable.

Having looked at the news articles they crop up in, they themself are not the subjects of these articles and appear to be a ~~media~~ press release factory, making commentary on the issues they have an interest in without ever being notable themself to be in the subject. The ONS court case, which as I have said, the case itself and not the group bringing it are what is notable if at all.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:37, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:37, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:37, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:37, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect The article is unclear about the status of the organisation or its purpose. There is no indication of the size or budget of the organisation. From its website there is reason to suspect that it might be little more than a one person organisation. There is no company registration number, list of board members or indication of budget. The article does detail a little about its activities but these do not seem to add up to anything even close to notability. The Google links do not suggest that there is anything substantial to add that would make a difference to that evaluation. In fact, the only thing I found that might possibly merit addition was the fact that they took out a full page advert in Metro but, like the horrible tweets, this relates to their media activities rather than to anything more substantial. The census paperwork challenge is the only item here worthy of brief mention in an encyclopaedia. That is already covered in sufficient detail at 2021 United Kingdom census#Legal challenge to 'What is your Sex' question so I suggest we redirect to that. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I found their listing at Companies House and it does not give me any reason to revise my opinion. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:10, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Sources suggest this doesn't pass WP:SUSTAINED as the notable coverage is only about one event. Rab V (talk) 17:26, 21 June 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 already speedily deleted by User:CaptainEek. Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Syafiq Abdullah

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

No english language press mentions, non-notable business person. The only thing which might save it is being a Datuk, though two citations given to support this claim in the article did not contain his name. There are many Datuks in Malaysia and this in of itself is maybe not enough to class someone as notable. Uhooep (talk) 18:45, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:36, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:36, 19 June 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 06:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Borkung Hrangkhawl

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

Soft corner for him due to discrimination with him but sorry it Fails WP:SINGER & WP:GNG. Sonofstar (talk) 14:14, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 14:14, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 14:14, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 14:14, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 14:14, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question - What does "Soft corner for him due to discrimination" mean? ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:52, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I feel bad, when people calling him Nepali as per the sources instead of supporting the talent. Well, this is similar to black & White in the USA. Sonofstar (talk) 03:38, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – a WP:BEFORE search finds a fairly solid number of secondary sources, including actual scholarly sources (which is not all that common for an article about a rap musician).

Karlsson, B. 2017. "Bonnie Guest House. Fieldwork and Friendship across Generations". In: Yasmin Saikia and Amit R. Baishya (eds.) Northeast India: A Place of Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 93-110. (discussion of Borkung Hrangkhawl's music on p 107)
Vandenhelsken, M, & B. Karlsson. 2015. "Fluid attachments in Northeast India: introduction". Asian Ethnicity, 17 (3). pp. 330-339.
Srivastav, S. 2021. "Self-acceptance and Hip-Hop Music". In: Marron, M. B. (ed.) Misogyny Across Global Media. pp. 191-202 (trivial mention of Borkung Hrangkhawl on p192)
Kharsyntiew, T. 2017. "Youth fashion and the identity of resistance in Northeast India". In: Vandenhelsken et al. (eds.) Geographies of Difference: Explorations in Northeast Indian Studies. Delhi: Routledge India. pp. 159–173.

In addition, there are sources such as this Times of India article, this from The News Mill, this from TOI (not a full-length article but more than a trivial mention), this from This Better India, and this from Rolling Stone India (one paragraph), none of which is in the article currently. --bonadea contributions talk 14:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the multiple reliable sources identified above including scholarly sources and reliable media sources that amount to significant coverage that can be used to expand the article and show a clear pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:00, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I might say for the links shared about are not independent. If you observe the articles its clear that this is a PR and nothing else. Rest for Cambridge University Press and others I am not sure as I don't have the links of it. Sonofstar (talk) 06:25, 29 June 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. Per WP:SK#4. Nom blocked as sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oficialtowhid. (non-admin closure) —Nnadigoodluck███ 11:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uttar Banga Krishi Viswavidyalaya

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

Not a notable college. No independent reliable source found. Fails WP:GNG Trap133 (talk) 18:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per WP:SK#4. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:30, 20 June 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. Per WP:SK#4. Nom blocked as sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oficialtowhid. (non-admin closure) —Nnadigoodluck███ 11:25, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Malda Zilla School

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

Not a notable school. No independent reliable source found. Fails WP:GNG Trap133 (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per WP:SK#4. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:31, 20 June 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 00:03, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Todd McMullen

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

Prod declined in 2012. Seems to be a non-notable camera man. A couple hits in industry press[5][6], one interview [7], and a passing mention or two. I don't think this is enough to establish notability. Mbdfar (talk) 20:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Mbdfar (talk) 20:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find sufficient sources to show notability. Suonii180 (talk) 12:23, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:13, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Couldn't find sufficient sources either, and just fails to meet WP:GNG by a decent margin. Tautomers_{(T C)} 22:30, 26 June 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 06:54, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Fang

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

You'd think a billionaire co-founder and CTO of a high-profile company would get more press coverage, but he hasn't. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBUSINESSPERSON. Redirect to DoorDash? Clarityfiend (talk) 20:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, another cofounder Tony Xu has a standalone page. Andy Fang has some references [8], [9], [10], possibly some more. Chirota (talk) 21:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the first place, Xu has a few articles about him. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a worthwhile argument. Your references are of little use: (1) is a prep school's website, so neither neutral nor particularly reliable; (2) has him on a list of 15, better than nothing I guess, but not by much; and (3) is a repost of part of a Forbes article that only mentions him in passing. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I put my comment only as I wasn't comfortable choosing any side for this discussion. Nowadays WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is used in a completely biased fashion. Where the Essay never says "other stuff exists" arguments are unacceptable, rather it says These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid.. It also says, When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes leaving the scope of the usage open. So its blind usage to obstruct any comparison of nominated articles with any another article should be avoided. Also, "other stuff exists" argument was just a part of my rationale while rest of the rationale was based on the references available on the subject. In either case, I hardly have any emotion here if the article is kept or deleted. Chirota (talk) 23:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:13, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the subject has been a Forbes 30 under 30 recipient, and is one of the youngest billionaires in the world. He has received coverage by Forbes, The Globe and Mail, Mercury News Mercury News again, ~~CNBC~~, The Chicago Tribune, Business Insider, Business Insider again, Business Journal SF. He has also received trivial coverage by Bloomberg, Fox Business, The Times, Wired, and other publications. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 00:40, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources are: passing mention, passing mention in an announcement, passing mentions announcing a seminar he's putting on, a couple of paragraphs in an article not about him, non-independent short bio by CNBC for CNBC's Technology Executive Council, of which he is a member, photo and two sentences in a list of 19 Asian American business trailblazers, passing mention, passing mention in a photo caption, and stop me if you've heard this before, passing mention in an announcement. And these are the non-trivial sources? Clarityfiend (talk) 07:09, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- If the CNBC profile is non-independent, then I'll strike it. But I disagree the other sources are merely passing mentions. They might not go as in-depth as the Business Insider source, but it's more than a trivial mention. Besides, he seems to basically meet WP:NBUSINESSPERSON. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 07:58, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of NBUSINESSPERSON? He's not the president, CEO or chairperson of the board. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:24, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes: four passing mentions (all paired with Tang) in an announcement that focuses on Xu
Globe and Mail: a couple of quotes in an announcement
1st Mercury News: an announcement that he's giving a seminar
2nd Mercury News: an announcement that he's making a sizable donation to a school
Chicago Tribune: as stated before, a photo and a two-sentence caption in a list of 19
1st Business Insider: "The company was founded by 22-year-old Stanley Tang and 23-year-old Andy Fang ..." only mention
2nd Business Insider: Okay, this one's a keeper.
Business Journal SF: Can't read this without a subscription, but it's a business announcement Clarityfiend (talk) 21:36, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I said "basically" passes NBUSINESSPERSON. Surely a co-founder & CTO is comparable to a corporate president & CEO. We don't follow the strict letter of policies and guidelines. We're not a bureaucracy. And, per your admission, he already passes GNG. You agree that the second Business Insider source is sufficient. And, although you don't say it outright, you agree that both Mercury News articles are more than a trivial mention. WP:BASIC allows us to combine multiple sources in an effort to demonstrate notability. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:29, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:17, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Dr.Swag Lord's sources. But even if we accept Clarityfiend's objections to their statements, we need to keep in mind that: (1) this is a recent billionaire in a country that worships billionaires, and (2) all the best sources are pretty recent. If he's a weak keep now in mid-2021, he'll be a strong keep by 2022. Mottezen (talk) 04:36, 26 June 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 06:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2000 Marlborough helicopter crash

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

Tragic but WP:NOTNEWS applies. Helicopter crashes, rescue copters especially, do crash. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are sources in the article covering this event 10 and 20 years after it happened. I think that exceeds WP:NOTNEWS. And I don't get what you mean about the complaints department being on the roof - that's irrelevant to the article. Deus et lex (talk) 00:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Helicopters crash all the time sadly some are fatal but are very rarely of note for an article or even a mention in wikipedia. Good guide is that it should have killed somebody notable (normal indicated that they have an article) to get a mention for these types of accident. Nothing in the article indicates it is anything but one of thousands of non-noteworthy fatal helicopter accidents. MilborneOne (talk) 08:15, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - this just reads like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There's no requirement in Wikipedia that an accident be fatal in order to retain it. If there's a good policy reason to delete the article, then say so, but there's no reason to make things up to justify deletion. Deus et lex (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - you need to assume good faith here and accusing others of making stuff up is not really acceptable. But thanks you actually agree with me that being fatal is not a good reason to keep it. MilborneOne (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - What I'm saying is made up is your claim that if an accident is not fatal it gets deleted. There is no such Wikipedia policy. It's not bad faith to call that out. Deus et lex (talk) 12:27, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Some citations [11][12] mention the crash years after the incident. The crash is clearly notable although it needs more expansion. Nyanardsan (talk) 17:38, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not the news. This event doesn’t rise to the level of significance required for an encyclopedia entry. Further the sustained coverage is entirely local.4meter4 (talk) 00:08, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - ABC News and The World Today are national broadcasts, they are not "local" news. And your claim that "the event doesn't rise to the significance of a Wikipedia policy" again doesn't accord with Wikipedia policy. Deus et lex (talk) 12:19, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see several signs that would suggest that this event meets WP:EVENT criteria, including the diversity and persistence of the coverage as pointed out by other editors here. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 05:09, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:03, 19 June 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. czar 22:27, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Nancarrow

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

No evidence of notability, just promotional sites. ... discospinster _talk 16:04, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 16:04, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:04, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete completely promotional in tone, and I doubt thechicagojournal.com, genfluencer.com, and seekerstime.com will be adjudicated to be independent reliable sources. The fact that it sprung forth fully formed suggests either COI or paid editing. Jclemens (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to insufficient evidence of notability per WP:NACTOR. Generally I consider actors who are in the top 10,000 rankings of the IMDb StarMeter to be notable enough to have their articles kept. But this actor has never been in the top 100,000 of the IMDb StarMeter. If he becomes notable in the future, the article can be re-created at that time. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The tone of the article appears to be promotional. Not Notable.Aloolkaparatha (talk) 17:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It should be deleted because reliable sources are week and this article written just for advertisement purpose.TheDreamBoat (talk) 00:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - paid/promotional material. I've removed both "thechicagojournal" and "seekerstime" as known seo/paid placement sinks that pretend to be "news" sites. Kuru (talk) 22:09, 25 June 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 11:11, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Center of Traditional Taoist Studies

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to pass either WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:09, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:09, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:09, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There was a talk page comment about viewing a source before deleting but that source said: "CTTS is actually a large private home in Weston, ... None of the Weston townspeople with whom I spoke knew that CTTS was there." Overall, lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) No major discussion cited in Google Books or News sources either. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 22:35, 26 June 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 Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University. There was no policy/guideline reason given for deleting the article before redirecting and so that was not done. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rajkiya Engineering College, Mainpuri

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

Does not pass WP:NORG as there are no WP:RS to support. The references in the list are either primary source, paid advertisements or unreliable. GermanKity (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and then Redirect to Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University (or to List of colleges affiliated with Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University). Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. The facts in the previous AfD, namely that the institute exists and awards degrees, are not enough to demonstrate notability. There isn't any valuable material to merge. --Muhandes (talk) 07:52, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University or List of colleges affiliated with Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University. I totally agree with Muhandes here. The college obviously fails the notability guidelines and keeping the article just because they exist or give out awards isn't adequate when there's literally nothing to write an from. Wikipedia doesn't exist just to verify unsourced, basic facts. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:53, 21 June 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 00:05, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khasan Askhabov

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

Fails WP:MMABIO also fails GNG HeinzMaster (talk) 14:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. HeinzMaster (talk) 14:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He fails to meet WP:NMMA since he has no top tier MMA fights. Coverage appears to be solely routine sports reporting, MMA databases, and appearing in some lists of top "prospects". None of these support a claim that WP:GNG is met. I then went looking at his combat sambo record. The FIAS (International Sambo Federation) shows its 2013 European championships were held during May in Crema, Italy and the results do not mention Askhabov at all [13]. The reference about his winning the 2013 European combat sambo championship mentions a tournament that isn't even on the European Sambo Federation's list of events [14]. There is no evidence that he currently meets any WP notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 19:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not follows all the norms, not notable enough.Aloolkaparatha (talk) 06:58, 24 June 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 00:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chen Zhiping

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

Non-notable individual. The two Forbes articles are Forbes contributors, which per RSP is not RS. Bloomberg Profiles is not RS per RSP. That leaves one source, which arguably isn't significant coverage anyway. Fails WP:GNG. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BASIC. ——Serial 14:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:07, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Are me and the nom seeing different Forbes articles? They are marked as Forbes Staff which RSP marks as reliable. Though that doesn't have SIGCOV of the actual guy so it doesn't really matter. Looking at Chinese sources the best one I could find was this one. Not enough to meet GNG. Jumpytoo Talk 00:46, 20 June 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) TheChronium 05:43, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Wang

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

Non-notable individual that does not pass notability, and thus the page is a permastub. SCMP is RS, but Forbes Profiles is not. A WP:BEFORE search did not find any other RS. Coverage in just one RS fails the requirements of WP:GNG. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BASIC. ——Serial 13:04, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see lots of Chinese-language sources. These turned up on a quick search, and I'm sure a more thorough search would find more.[15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:50, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, me too; but all just passing mentions unfortunately...但不是對所有事物，——Serial 15:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The first one[26] gives biographical information about her education and career. The second one[27] gives fairly detailed information about her career. The third one[28] meanders in topic somewhat but also includes biographical information about her. I can go on if you'd like, but I don't think any of the sources I linked can be described as just passing mentions. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:36, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

揮動你的手. ——Serial 16:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Plenty of significant coverage in Chinese language per search by Mx. Granger. WP:GNG is met. VocalIndia (talk) 16:43, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

很少 ——Serial 16:49, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has significant coverage from the SCMP article, this Forbes Staff Daily Cover article, and the Chinese language sources Granger provided. Jumpytoo Talk 21:17, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources provided by Mx. Granger (talk. Peter303x (talk) 09:17, 20 June 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 11:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Machaan

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

Non-notable film, all sources are reprints of press releases coming from questionable sources, does not have significant coverage by reliable sources per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 11:37, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:40, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:40, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 01:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: seems to fail GNG and NFILM. Kolma8 (talk) 12:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. It's been 6 months since release. Reviews should appear by now if they must. That being said, one can never rule out the possibility of this film picking up and garnering attention and hence the page should be allowed to make in future with out any biases if such reviews appear that they satisfy WP:NFILM. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 15:51, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I did a lot of researching but I could not find anything that would help save this from deletion. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 00:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 00:29, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This film gives awareness about AIDS and is been telecasted on TV also. Found a reference ^[1] Ermunu (talk) 11:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://theprint.in/ani-press-releases/director-nitesh-tiwaris-machaan-looking-to-create-a-positive-aura-in-the-society/680402/

- This source is a press release and is not considered independent coverage. BOVINEBOY2008 02:17, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage outside of paid-for press releases Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:36, 25 June 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. Per WP:SK#4. Nom blocked as sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oficialtowhid. (non-admin closure) —Nnadigoodluck███ 11:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emilio Villegas

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

This article fails WP:NBOX. Trap133 (talk) 11:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Trap133 (talk) 11:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Trap133 (talk) 11:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep True, but meets WP:NOLY, and he also won a medal at a multi-national sports event outside of the Olympics. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actually passes the amateur aspect of NBOX, which was moved into the 'Amateur sports persons' section three days ago (I've moved it back to avoid further confusion). – ².O.^Boxing 11:57, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Squares. I wasn't too sure about the notability of this person solely based on WP:NBOX, so thanks for the clarification. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:18, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NOLY, and no evidence that a WP:BEFORE has been done. I would expect there is coverage of him, at least in the Dominican Republic, which probably won't be online, as he's a medallist at a continental event. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:57, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Olympic athletes are automatically presumed to be notable. I am open to a WP:SNOW close if this nomination gets enough attention. Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:28, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 09:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:SK#4. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:40, 20 June 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 Speedily deleted (by numerous people today). (non-admin closure) ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:51, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Appling

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

Unsourced promotional BLP of an individual who has received no secondary coverage, a search brought up only a select few primary sources. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:39, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 19 June 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. Per WP:SK#4. Nom blocked as sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oficialtowhid. (non-admin closure) —Nnadigoodluck███ 11:21, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gangarampur College

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

Non-notable school with no Reliable, Independent Sources. Fails WP:GNG Trap133 (talk) 10:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Trap133 (talk) 10:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:19, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:19, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per WP:SK#4. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:41, 20 June 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. Per WP:SK#4. Nom blocked as sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oficialtowhid. (non-admin closure) —Nnadigoodluck███ 11:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gangarampur Girls' High School

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

Non-notable school with no Reliable, Independent Sources. Fails WP:GNG Trap133 (talk) 10:53, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Trap133 (talk) 10:53, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Trap133 (talk) 10:53, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Trap133 (talk) 10:53, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per WP:SK#4. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:41, 20 June 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. Per WP:SK#4. Nom blocked as sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oficialtowhid. (non-admin closure) —Nnadigoodluck███ 11:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ishaath Public School

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

Non-notable school with no Reliable, Independent Sources. Trap133 (talk) 10:51, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Trap133 (talk) 10:51, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Trap133 (talk) 10:51, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Trap133 (talk) 10:51, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Trap133 (talk) 10:51, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Trap133 (talk) 10:51, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per WP:SK#4. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:42, 20 June 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 draftify. The creator of the article himself moved the article to draftspace after I had nominated for deletion. (non-admin closure) — A.A Prinon ^{Leave a dialogue} 06:31, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zeeshan Zameer

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

Non-notable cricketer, fails WP:NCRIC with no appearances in cricket match that is judged to have been played at the highest international or domestic level. Creator is trying to say that the cricketer is notable as he appeared in Abu Dhabi T10 League, but T10 league is not played in T20 status, so not deemed notable as per WP:OFFCRIC. Subject fails to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG. All WP:REFBOMBs in the article is just about squads selection of different teams, but lacks significant or in-depth coverage about the player in multiple articles. — A.A Prinon ^{Leave a dialogue} 09:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — A.A Prinon ^{Leave a dialogue} 09:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — A.A Prinon ^{Leave a dialogue} 09:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. — A.A Prinon ^{Leave a dialogue} 09:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — A.A Prinon ^{Leave a dialogue} 09:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently he was born in 10 August 2021 (although this isn't sourced) - which if true would make him a time traveller - which might imply some sort of notability. There is another date of birth (10 August 2002) in the infobox, also unsourced, which doesn't match the date of birth given by [29] - is this a reliable source? Seriously - this is a BLP so sourcing needs to be of high quality. He doesn't seem to have played at first-class/list-A/equivalent level, and there isn't evidence of the sort of substantial coverage needed to get past GNG.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:30, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nigel Ish: I think that Pak Passion is really not a reliable source, but Cricinfo is a reliable one. And Cricinfo's database indicates that the subject fails WP:NCRIC. — A.A Prinon ^{Leave a dialogue} 10:44, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nigel Ish: Indeed he was a time traveler before your edit [30]. I think you were jealous of him (I was too). By the way thank you for your contribution. Cheers Abdulhaseebatd (talk) 14:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Already Moved Article to Draftspace it was all my bad. I mixed up Abu Dhabi T20 league with Abu Dhabi T10 league. He doesn't qualify WP:NCRIC, but it is highly possible that he'll play for his team in this season, so it'll be better we improve this Zeeshan Zameer in Draftspace untill he appears for his team. Thank you. Abdulhaseebatd (talk) 13:59, 19 June 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 that neither GNG or NAUTHOR is met Nosebagbear (talk) 14:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

S. V. Divvaakar

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

Non notable author of 2 books. His first book received some reviews, probably due to his IIT tag. Created by an author with an obvious WP:COI as his other edits have been to the then BJP IT cell head and another non notable author. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR Jupitus Smart 08:57, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:57, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:57, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passes WP:NAUTHOR with reliable sources reviews such as Telegraph India and coverage in The Hindu. As to why his books were reviewed and possible coi it is only supposition, in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 01:32, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: Do you really think that 1 review for the first book and no reviews for his second book is enough to meet our criteria in WP:NAUTHOR. Is that not a very accommodating view. Besides his role as a columnist for some newspapers makes it hard to accept the independence of the review and in his mention in The Hindu (not the main newspaper - but the city supplement Metroplus). Also with 13 ratings on Goodreads and being held in only 6 libraries across the world (the other book is in 1 library according to Worldcat), it can be inferred that the book cannot be considered a 'significant work' as per WP:NAUTHOR. Jupitus Smart 02:24, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is Worldcat accurate for Indian library holdings ? regards Atlantic306 (talk) 23:12, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I have included Goodreads which is pretty accurate. Link to the famous novel by an IITian here (and its Worldcat entry here) and other Indian authors here for perspective. Jupitus Smart 01:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient independant coverage to warrant a pass of WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:07, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Nexus000 (talk) 10:01, 22 June 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 per WP:SNOW as it is already evident that no-one agrees with the nomination and the discussion is acrimonious. (non-admin closure) Andrew🐉(talk) 18:09, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs Hinch

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

Formerly contested CSD. Social media "Influencer" with little to no evidence of notability, little to no content other than promotional, links to promotional material or outside sources. Potentially breaks GNG and social media notability policies. Lots of headers about their platforms and products, very little content about why they should have free advertising on Wikipedia. doktorb _words^deeds 07:49, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed) Suttonpubcrawl (talk) 10:50, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 07:49, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 07:49, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content (AKA, currently moaning on Wikipediocracy and getting no traction from those good folk, so now we have to suffer it of course...) and veiled aspersions. ——Serial 14:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Author of four best selling books, including one which was the second fastest selling non-fiction title ever in the UK, and generally a very notable figure in the UK. Sheer hubris to suggest that someone as prominent as this is receiving "advertising" on Wikipedia. She's of similar prominence to someone like Joey Essex, who has a Wikipedia article. This is clearly the classic bias of stuck up Wikipedians who think that Wikipedia is of far greater promotional importance than it actually is, and deem some topics insufficiently high brow for inclusion. Suttonpubcrawl (talk) 09:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion this goes against GNG or that there is little evidence of notability is also utterly ludicrous when the page references several articles about the subject in the Guardian and Times, two of the UK's most respected newspapers, and lists details of her four books, confirming they were number one bestsellers. The books alone are sufficient justification for notability so reference to the social media notability rules is irrelevant. Suttonpubcrawl (talk) 10:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— Suttonpubcrawl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. doktorb _words^deeds 10:21, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

this is also nonsense because my account is more than ten years old and I've contributed images that are still on the pages for High-rise building and Barbican Estate Suttonpubcrawl (talk) 10:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mean look mate, we can't all spend 15 hours a day editing Wikipedia, day in day out, for years on end, the way you do Suttonpubcrawl (talk) 10:29, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The guidance in Help:My article got nominated for deletion! states "On Wikipedia, the general inclusion threshold is whether the subject is notable enough for at least two people to have written something substantive (more than just a mention) about that subject that has been published in a reliable source." This article far exceeds that measure so it's hard to see why it would have been nominated for deletion other than doktorb's personal bias and the fact he's mates with someone else who tried unsuccessfully to delete the page already. Suttonpubcrawl (talk) 11:03, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:47, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article's current state has no bearing on whether the subject is notable; by all means, she appears to be. She's apparently one of the most popular influencers in the UK, with widespread sourcing focused on her from major news outlets. ([31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36]). The article isn't overly promotional now, but I cut a few things regardless because they seemed inappropriate. If the article is lacking balance, as the nominator claims, then it might be a good idea to include some more detail on the criticism of Mrs Hinch (she was investigated by a watchdog for failing to disclose when she was doing paid advertising: [37]). — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 19:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references from The Times (which was present but not identified) and The Guardian (one already present, more noted by ImaginesTigers above, most of which are now in the article), plus the referenced best-selling books, establish notability. I've further tightened it up, made more use of existing references and added some, reinstating her husband, children, and date of birth and adding her autobiography and referenced follower numbers. @Suttonpubcrawl: please add a bolded Keep to one of your comments above. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They should probably make a new policy-based response entirely; their behaviour above was pretty poor. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 22:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets ANYBIO as a bestselling author, and GNG through the BBC and Guardian sources. Any issues with promotion or advertising can be fixed through the ordinary course of editing. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Undeniably meets notability criteria. Several articles about the subject in the Guardian and Times, two of the UK's most respected newspapers. Subject is the author of four best selling books and therefore not solely a social media figure. All this listed in the article itself. Prominent figure in the UK. If one believes there are issues with the article then the appropriate way to deal with these is by editing them, not deleting the article on spurious notability grounds. Suttonpubcrawl (talk) 06:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 'cos of the book, but my goodness our notability policies let an awful lot of crap in. -Roxy . wooF 08:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the point of an encyclopaedia is to document reality, not gatekeep it? I got involved in editing the article in the first place because I hadn't a clue who this woman everyone was going on about was, and I was shocked to find she wasn't in Wikipedia despite clearly being a notable figure. I thought it was important to have some sort of neutral reference about this person whose popularity and prominence is still frankly bizarre to me! Suttonpubcrawl (talk) 09:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree with prior evaluations. She is notable and has best selling book. Peter303x (talk) 09:19, 20 June 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. czar 06:28, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rajeev Venkayya

AfDs for this article:

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

No indication of notability. The references are passing mentions or profiles on affiliated organizations. A BEFORE turned up nothing that would suggest WP:GNG met. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:13, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:13, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:13, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Almost no in-depth coverage, just passing mentions apart from one interview. 15 (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with the arguments stated above. —FORMALDUDE^(talk) 20:45, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 00:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
comment significant coverage in Michael Lewis book. presidential fellow. meets GNG.--Kroneheft (talk) 18:53, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. KidAd • SPEAK 19:26, 25 June 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 notability is not met Nosebagbear (talk) 14:46, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Masternodes (Blockchain)

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

Crytpocurrency article- lacks coverage in third-party sources to establish notability of topic. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:37, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:26, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm seeing some coverage from a Google search. If Dash (cryptocurrency) and Firo (cryptocurrency) are noteworthy, then this article is too. Benevolent human (talk) 20:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:29, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't comment as to whether Dash (cryptocurrency) and Firo (cryptocurrency) are noteworthy, but I don't believe notability is inherited. My own search on google and elsewhere has only revealed trivial coverage; User:Benevolent human, if you have found non-trivial coverage could you provide examples? BilledMammal (talk) 05:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Given the toxicity of the blockchain hustle, the notability criterion should be assessed conservatively. While the concept seems interesting enough, we don't have the kind of disinterested coverage of the topic needed to provide neutral, reliable coverage.— Charles Stewart (talk) 21:30, 23 June 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. "It's pretty standard to have these lists" - perhaps, but by now it's also pretty standard to delete them. Sandstein 11:09, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of references to Long Island places in popular culture

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

Unsourced pop culture trivia, with the majority of the article consisting of entries that only marginally have to do with Long Island, such as "The Bravo show Newlyweds: The First Year had a couple from Long Island on it" or "In Mr. Deeds, Winona Ryder's character says she is originally from Syosset". The article doesn't explain how Long Island has had a cultural impact as a whole, and is instead a list of uncited trivia. Fails notability guidelines. Waxworker (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Waxworker (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Waxworker (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Waxworker (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. Waxworker (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problems here are typical of the "in popular culture" pages, but there's something which could probably be salvaged if someone wanted to. That is, a sourced list of movies, tv, music, etc. set in and/or about Long Island, rather than just references to it... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Long on Island, but short on cultural notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:45, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's pretty standard to have these lists, and this list is too long to go onto the main Long Island article. We might need to cut some of the material that may not be so directly related to Long Island though. Benevolent human (talk) 20:41, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Pretty standard"?^{[citation needed]} I see certain well-known landmarks in Category:New York City in popular culture, for example, but nothing for comparable regions such as Manhattan or the Bronx. (P.S. I have just nominated Washington Heights, Manhattan in popular culture for the axe.) Clarityfiend (talk) 02:43, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:28, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Completely unsourced list of trivia that fails WP:LISTN. Since there is not a single source being used and, glancing through the history, there never has been, there is nothing that could be salvaged from this. Rorshacma (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons stated above, long list of different media set in Long Island that fails WP:LISTN as reliable sources don't typically list media together based on their setting in Long Island, and has no sources.Mousymouse (talk) 19:10, 26 June 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 11:52, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trees (American band)

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

Only one source that might be considered non-trivial; all examples in the article are trivial, while a search does not turn any up, though this is complicated by the generic name.

A defence of the articles existence, posted in 2006, mentions three reasons it should exist. The first of these, referencing WP:MUSIC #5, may apply to the artist, but it doesn't apply to this band. The second of these, likely referencing WP:MUSIC #1, does provide an example,[38], but it is a single example, and given its brevity may not even be considered non-trivial. It does mention that other examples are available offline due to WP:RECENTISM, but it provides so specificity about this. The third of these, referencing WP:MUSIC #11, doesn't apply here; being played on MTV is not the same as being in rotation on MTV. BilledMammal (talk) 05:18, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 05:18, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The nominator makes a convincing case. The one Trees album from 1982 was largely unnoticed at the time and is occasionally mentioned in later years as a lost goodie for collectors. Those mentions are brief and non-significant. The same is true for Dane Conover's work as a songwriter before and after Trees, but even if some of his articles are reliable (e.g. [39]) they are still brief and not about Trees anyway. This is one of those lost bands with some interest for rock history geeks, but that is a fan endeavor not suitable for Wikipedia. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:24, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 19 June 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 "delete" arguments are based on Wikipedia guidelines, while the "keep" ones aren't. For example, copies of publications existing in libraries do not make even those publications notable, let alone subjects one step away, such as the publishers of those publications. Likewise for the other "keep" reasons. JBW (talk) 12:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Atma Global

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

Company doesn't pass WP:ORG; WP:GNG; was declined G7 because they have won an award. A bronze 'Stevie' (one of a very large number awarded) apart, there is zero notability on offer here. In the first 4 sources given in the article, the company isn't even mentioned in 3 of 'em... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A BEFORE shows no coverage outside of the Stevie award and the coverage is not significant. JBchrch talk 15:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think company pass WP:ORG; WP:GNG (Examples of substantial coverage: A scholarly article, a book passage, or ongoing media coverage focusing on a product or organization)

List of released tutorials and their availability in libraries around the world: ^[1] (416 works in 526 publications in 1 language and 53,185 library holdings) For example: available in the F.D. Bluford Library ^[2], Arkansas Tech University ^[3], The Chinese University of Hong Kong Library ^[4] and “Cultural Globalization A Bibliography” Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies in Iran: ^[5] S0merkile (talk) 14:26, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:57, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I google subject's products (e.g. CultureQuest) - it looks like they used in university courses (in Additional References): One and Two Plus I found some tutorial references Also there are many small publishers on Wikipedia, for example Bento Books and Dunedin Academic Press Ftopay (talk) 17:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing the notability of the company. P:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Pointing out that some of the products are listed in libraries is not one of the criteria for notability. Topic company fails our WP:NCORP criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Run n Fly (talk) 15:23, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The company received two more Stevie Awards in Education Category: Gold Stevie Award Winner and Bronze Stevie Award, I think that's ok, but the article needs improvement. EXPARiox (talk) 10:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NCORP. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 17:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Peter303x (talk) 00:08, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 June 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:NCORP. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:15, 25 June 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 18:26, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Cesar Rene Arce

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

This biographical article is about a non notable individual whose only claim to notability was his murder. Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:BIO1E. 4meter4 (talk) 03:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 05:09, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 05:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 05:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 05:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets GNG. There was extensive coverage at the time of the shooting in 1995. I have just added book sources from 2000, 2003 and 2007. Here's another 2003 source, a French book on theatre that mentions them. Here's a 2004 book called "legacies of Lynchburg" that goes into the story in decent depth. It's enduring. Someone with knowledge of crime topics might fix the title (Shooting of Cesar Rene Arce?) --- Possibly ☎ 05:30, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Arce shooting is also discussed in a half page section the Routledge Handbook of Graffiti and Street Art (2016), page 440. Now that I have read multiple sources, it's plain that the notable topic is the shooting. The shooter, who had just killed an 18-year old kid, was called a hero in Los Angeles. The shooting polarized the community. He had a lot of supporters for the killing, which in turn enraged others. This is what all the coverage is about, so I think it should definitely be renamed Shooting of Cesar Rene Arce after the AfD close. --- Possibly ☎ 06:40, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly You may want to change and bold your vote from keep to “move”, which is a viable vote at AFD, for clarity sake for the closing admin. I can see the topic change being possibly notable, and it side steps the issues raised in the nomination by moving the article. Best. 4meter4 (talk) 11:31, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4: I'm fine with it the way it is. Withdrawing the AfD might be appropriate, seeing as there are 15+ good sources spanning 21 years. --- Possibly ☎ 11:36, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly In retrospect, I should have thought of a topic change myself and made a move proposal instead of taking it to AFD. Your comment makes a lot of sense. Do you think this needs a move proposal, or should I just withdraw and move it myself?4meter4 (talk) 11:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4: I think you can withdraw this and then move the article after the close. --- Possibly ☎ 18:09, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:DIVERSE are being met in a perfectly sufficient way here. I'm also in agreement with the previous proposal to rename the article to Shooting of Cesar Rene Arce. 4meter4 per your last comment I think you'd be fine moving it yourself since the case for doing so is sufficiently obvious. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 17:46, 19 June 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 per WP:SNOW. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack

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

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

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

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

The existence of these articles, "Aftermath of the 2021 US Capitol attack" and "Criminal charges brought in the 2021 US Capitol attack", especially as splits from the main article "2021 United States Capitol attack", constitute WP:UNDUE weight of those specific aspects of the events. Normally I would suggest merging to the main article but the main article is large enough already.

Additionally, until I acted on it, the "criminal charges" sub-article didn't even have a link to the main "2021 US Capitol attack" article in the lede section. (See this version from a couple of days ago: [40] )

I am also nominating the following related pages (reasoning described above)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 03:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 03:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 03:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If merge is the most plausible outcome, but the OP admits that it should not be merged because the main article is large enough, then it seems we are following WP:ARTICLESIZE perfectly. While due/undue conversations can certainly be had about some small portion of the material in the sub-articles, it's clear from even just a cursory glance that there's quite a bit of information that is due, and was split off for size reasons in the parent article. What content is due/undue is a consideration that can take place through normal discussion/editing processes on the talk pages. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Just noting that I was about to subscribe to Alalch Emis' view that perhaps the aftermath article should go, but the continued editing has moved me back to believing that any DUE concerns can be handled through normal editorial processes. Basically, no change in my !vote overall, but I agree with Alalch Emis that the aftermath section of the main article, and the subarticle itself, likely need more work - but it's moving in the right direction. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Argument given in deletion proposal is not persuasive. Why is it - all of it - UNDUE, exactly? Egsan Bacon (talk) 03:57, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep no valid reason for deletion Feoffer (talk) 05:50, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ---Another Believer _(Talk) 05:56, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not seeing any good reason for deletion. --Calton | Talk 06:24, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The aftermath article is certainly discussing relevant aspects that would not all fit into the 2021 United States Capitol attack. I don't really think this article is giving "undue weight to minor aspects of its subject", as the aftermath has brought an impeachment trial, many investigations, arrests, and more. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 07:33, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I thank the nominator for applying related links to the "main" article, but disagree that these pages should be deleted, they not serving as forks but rather as subpages to an overlong main page. Since several threads have appeared on Talk:2021 United States Capitol attack discussing the merits of "splitting" the mainpage, it's heartening to see such a variety of contributors I see there encouraging a keep outcome of what I view as subpages here. BusterD (talk) 11:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Berchanhimez said, we can discuss whether some content of the articles is WP:DUE, but it's pretty obvious that the topics as a whole are notable. For example, hundreds of WP:RS have covered the criminal charges and are still publishing new reports every day. — Chrisahn (talk) 12:21, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Criminal charges brought in the 2021 United States Capitol attack per Berchanhimez. However:
~~Delete~~ Keep Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack (and merge where appropriate). The existence of the Aftermath article is a leftover from an earlier phase in the development of this topic area on Wikipedia. It's comprised of content split off from the parent, Attack, article, but in the meantime, more specific articles that are technically it's sub-articles /edit: or sections of already existing articles, such as Donald Trump on social media/ were started and developed, all of them now in better shape than the corresponding sections of the aftermath article.

The aftermath article now simply duplicates the scope of these main articles, that cover quite discrete, natural, and recognizable topics such as Second impeachment of Donald Trump – that's actually something someone will look for independently, as opposed to an "aftermath of x" article.

In other words, the aftermath article is an intermediate level of topic coverage in terms of specificity, so that there are three levels (the attack article - the intermediate aftermath article which is a sort of a compilation of topics - the actual articles on the topics of the aftermath), but there should be two levels (the attack article - the actual articles...). There is no reason for this intermediate level anymore, it serves no purpose. Note that this rationale is completely independent from the nominator's. Also, I know that there is ample precedent for "aftermath of x" articles, such as the aftermath of 9/11, but where possible, these should still be avoided IMO — Alalch Emis (talk) 13:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my vote after a related discussion Talk:2021 United States Capitol attack#Cont. - in light of the Aftermath AfD, and after edits to the nominated article, whereby it can be seen as a summary now and not a compilation of near-duplicate passages. This coincidentally neutralizes potential WP:DUE concerns, in my view. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per the multiple discussions and consensuses (consensi?) reached at Talk:2021 United States Capitol attack regarding splitting the original article. There is far too much information contained here to be easily merged back into an already lengthy main article, and current news reports/sources are more focused on the aftermath (arrests, commission, etc.) than the original event itself. Maybe in a few years, once this has all settled down, we can condense and re-organize all of the (then historical) content, but not now. - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:07, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Adolphus79: Nothing needs to be merged back into the parent article. The aftermath article can just be deleted. It simply mirrors content of article such as Second impeachment of Donald Trump, Donald Trump on social media etc. It's much better to link only to those specific articles from the parent article's Aftermath section directly (and that section will always exist in some form), and eschew any intermediate steps, that have only led to duplication of content, and difficulties in maintaining and updating all of it. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is no non-partisan or non-frivolous reason that I can come up with that would allow me to look at the extent of the coverage of this topic and think that we are giving it undue weight. Additionally, the claim in the proposal seems to be that the main article is too long for this content to be merged back into, but keeping it as a separate article makes it biased. This is circular logic, and is not cohesive with any actual guidelines of notability or verifiability. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid WP:Content Forking as the main article is too long as is and the important aspects of the January 6 attack are too much for one article. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:26, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the parent article has an Aftermath section, and it always will in some form, it's a WP:REDUNDANTFORK, because the actual topics of the aftermath are covered in detail in relevant specific articles. Links to all those articles should be made (and already mostly are) in the attack article - so why should someone read two versions on the impeachment, one in the aftermath article, and another in the impeachment article? — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Alalch Emis: It's supposed to be done in a WP:SUMMARYSTYLE-type manner. You read the overview in one article, and then you can hop into the dedicated article to read more about the subject in greater detail if you are interested. You can argue whether or not that has happened here, but that is generally the way things should go. They aren't supposed to be viewed as seperate versions of the same article is what I'm saying. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:00, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MJL: Agreed, but in this case we have the summary in the parent article, and the link is directly to the dedicated stuff. A summary can be just one or two sentences, to give you the picture. It doesn't have be an intermediate version (how would you even get to read it when the parent article links directly to where it should). I think those intermediate summaries are generally not very good. — Alalch Emis (talk) 03:34, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets notability as perhaps the largest FBI investigation in history. TFD (talk) 03:14, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment what about List of criminal charges brought in the 2021 United States Capitol attack, and this article consists of a bulleted list of the type of charge, followed by how many people were charged/arrested/prosecuted, and names of any notable people, and that's about it. We don't have to go into extended drama about each manhunt and post on Gab or MySpace or whatever. Elizium23 (talk) 03:15, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea. Such a page would probably more accessible than Criminal charges brought in the 2021 United States Capitol attack#Specific arrests and charges, which may be a bit too detailed. But I'm afraid the idea will get lost here in the AfD discussion. You might want to propose it on Talk:Criminal charges brought in the 2021 United States Capitol attack. — Chrisahn (talk) 04:02, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. This nomination is quite odd. Moncrief (talk) 03:45, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It just doesn't make sense to delete this. ImYourTurboLover (talk) 04:42, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course - this is exactly how summary style is supposed to function. We don't give undue weight in the main article by having separate articles. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:57, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid WP:SUMMARYSTYLE sub-article. That being said, I do appreciate Alalch Emis' concerns about this being a superfluous layer of WP:SUMMARYSTYLE (2021 United States Capitol attack#Aftermath — Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack — several different sub-articles). Indeed, some sections such as 2021 United States Capitol attack#Political donors and Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack#Political donors are identical across the two articles at time of writing.
However, I would be more inclined to condense 2021 United States Capitol attack#Aftermath and/or expand Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack rather than delete the latter in order to solve that issue. An example of how we can write things with three different levels of detail can be seen at 2021 United States Capitol attack#Potential spread of COVID-19, Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack#Potential spread of COVID-19, and COVID-19 pandemic in Washington, D.C.#Concerns in relation to the U.S Capitol Attack (which isn't to say that there isn't still room for improvement—there is).
What's more, this article contains information that I think belongs on Wikipedia, but that I would consider to be WP:UNDUE in the main article and not suitable for a stand-alone article (namely the Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack#Revocation of Trump honorary degrees, contracts, and other connections section).
All in all, I don't think deleting this is the right way to go. I think further editing to improve the quality at all three levels is the best way to improve the encyclopaedia as a whole. TompaDompa (talk) 17:34, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- In my opinion, the reasoning "This content belongs on Wikipedia but not on a main article because it would be UNDUE there", is one of the things that leads to bias on this split-off type of article. Content either belongs on Wikipedia in compliance with policies, or it doesn't (or the policy[ies] needs to be changed). 23:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️
  - I get what you're saying and I agree in a lot of cases (especially when it comes to those horrible flag salad "reactions to [event]" articles...), but I don't think it applies here. In this case, I wouldn't have minded a brief mention at the main article if it weren't already so long. This is the basic idea behind WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, to keep the main article to a manageable length. Likewise, there are lots of things that would not be WP:DUE on the main World War II article, but are perfectly reasonable to mention at one of the sub-articles such as Aftermath of World War II or Eastern Front (World War II). TompaDompa (talk) 09:39, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Criminal charges brought in the 2021 United States Capitol attack as I am worried this is a gross violation of wp:blp in that we are having material about very unimportant people dealing to their crimes when they have not been convicted.Slatersteven (talk) 18:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: deletion is a pretty extreme solution to BLP concerns for criminal allegations stemming from a high-profile event such as this one. VQuakr (talk) 19:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Good faith effort to reduce the size of a 450kb article, per the guideline WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. We should support editors when they try to tackle shortening large articles. Shortening long articles greatly increases readability. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:15, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think there's been a misunderstanding. The words "undue weight" have two different meanings. One is defined in WP:UNDUE: "...articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." The other is defined in WP:PROPORTION: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." As far as I can tell, this debate is actually about "undue weight" in the sense of "minor aspects" (WP:PROPORTION), not in the sense of "minority views" (WP:UNDUE). — Chrisahn (talk) 11:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of sourcing in both articles, indicating the extensive, ongoing coverage of these aspects of the main event that make them reasonable content forks and that negates the OP's nomination reasoning of "undue". VQuakr (talk) 19:28, 21 June 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. czar 06:22, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2009–10 AEL Kalloni F.C. season

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

Team in a non-fully professional league. Jolicnikola (talk) 00:45, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 June 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:07, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 05:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 05:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:08, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 09:42, 19 June 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. czar 06:22, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2008–09 Aiolikos F.C. season

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

Non-notable team in a non-fully professional league. Jolicnikola (talk) 00:43, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 June 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:07, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 05:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 05:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 09:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:10, 20 June 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. czar 06:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2007–08 Aiolikos F.C. season

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

Non-notable team in a non-fully professional league. Jolicnikola (talk) 00:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 June 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:07, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 05:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 05:13, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 09:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:08, 20 June 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 first "keep" is discounted because it argues that being chief of a big police department is inherently notable, which is at odds with our guidelines. The second, weak "keep" argues basically that "there must be sources somewhere". But until we actually can cite these sources, there is no basis for an article, per WP:V and WP:GNG. Sandstein 06:57, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Riordan (police officer)

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

dePRODded (courtesy @Necrothesp:) as he was chief, but per this, it may have been less than a year. I cannot find any other coverage to establish notability or any discussion of his career as chief. Pre-internet is of course an issue, but if he had a lasting impact, I imagine there would be something. Star Mississippi 14:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 14:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 14:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 14:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books finds plenty of mentions in reliable sources, for example here, but I haven't checked them out to see if any have significant coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- From those where I could access previews, it was captions and just references in/to his role, more as Deputy than Chief due to tenure I presume. Star Mississippi 23:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think it is common sense that the chief of a police department as significant as the SFPD should be deemed to be notable, even if he was only chief for a short time. Note that before that he was also deputy chief for seven years. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:34, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Per WP:POLITICIAN, you have to have held a major non-local office or have significant press coverage to qualify for notability. While I am wary of WP:MEMORIAL, I think the Google Books results page is a good start to finding more sources. But even a passing mention in this timeline from the San Francisco Historical Society indicates that there is probably potential more coverage that isn't on the internet, which would qualify for the latter of WP:POLITICIAN. — BriefEdits (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Peter303x (talk) 00:49, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no significant coverage and many of the sources are presumed and do not constitute evidence of notability. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 21:05, 20 June 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. czar 06:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SoftwareONE

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

No Notability 8ya (talk • contribs) 12:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. "end-to-end Software and Cloud Technology Solutions" Yummy! Also, if you're standing up your WP page on Businesswire, you're toast. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:17, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The whole article depends on the press releases. Does not satisfy WP:NCORP. GermanKity (talk) 14:48, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and To be improved The actual state of the article is really poor, but when looking to the original articles SoftwareONE (alsWP) rsp. SoftwareONE (deWP), the abvoe argument The whole article depends on the press releases can easily be refuted and used for upgrading. E.g. KKR involved, MS Partner of the Year, CRN: #14 of 500, sales US$ 7 bn. AVS (talk) 05:22, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Modified 'Conservation' to 'Keep' according the usual terminology. AVS (talk) 18:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- @Avernarius: Sorry if I am getting things wrong since this is my first time requesting a delete, but don't those fall under WP:INHERITORG and Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Examples_of_trivial_coverage? 8ya (talk • contribs) 13:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think so. Of course, it's easy to delete - but our strive always should be, to improve instead negate. Need help with translation? AVS (talk) 04:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I can read both the Alemannic and the German version, but I don't really see a reason for those to be Wikipedia articles either, as they don't offer much more on notability as far as I can see 8ya (talk • contribs) 17:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - I made some changes now, though I think, it should be done by you, as initiant. AVS (talk) 09:03, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you, but I don't think any of these fulfill our criteria for notability, as they should fall under the points raised before 8ya (talk • contribs) 09:54, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Peter303x (talk) 00:47, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Avernarius:, may I ask which sources exactly you think fulfill our notability criteria? 8ya (talk • contribs) 09:45, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's annoying. Let's decide the community. AVS (talk) 13:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we decide the community? :) 8ya (talk • contribs) 01:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Linguistics replaces missing arguments :-( AVS (talk) 04:46, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to argue here, I am simply asking why you think the way you do and get an "it's annoying" :-((( 8ya (talk • contribs) 08:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of again and again renewing your demamands, please study Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. It's you, who's in obligation to be active, as its YOU, who wants an action. Furthermore, some of the above arguments are simply false (The whole article depends on the press releases.). Just a few non-formal questions: What about KKR, sales of 9 bn US$ - did you try to verify? AVS (talk) 05:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Avernarius:, may I ask which sources exactly you think fulfill our notability criteria? 8ya (talk • contribs) 09:45, 19 June 2021 (UTC) 8ya (talk • contribs) 10:34, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* Sure, simply read: a) the article, b) my above answers AVS (talk) 04:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

but don't those fall under WP:INHERITORG and Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Examples_of_trivial_coverage? 8ya (talk • contribs) 13:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
@Avernarius:, may I ask which sources exactly you think fulfill our notability criteria? 8ya (talk • contribs) 09:45, 19 June 2021 (UTC) 8ya (talk • contribs) 10:34, 22 June 2021 (UTC) 8ya (talk • contribs) 12:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* Tibetan prayer wheel ... AVS (talk) 04:46, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The applicable guideline is WP:NCORP. I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:39, 19 June 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. While I think that by now the community mostly agrees that porn awards and nominations are a very questionable basis for notability, there are valid arguments being made here that the non-porn media coverage of her death indicates notability. Sandstein 11:18, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dakota Skye (actress)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Kota Sky

Articles for deletion/Dakota Skye (actress)

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

Fails GNGChief Minister (Talk) 09:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Chief Minister (Talk) 09:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The reasons at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kota Sky (same person apparently) still apply. Fram (talk) 09:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG, coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Note that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kota Sky was in 2015, while all the sources are from after 2015. SportsOlympic (talk) 09:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with Fram above - what we have added since deletion in 2015 is that she hit her boyfriend and apparently has died (I can't verify that last bit 'cos the Emirates appears to consider the sites 'naughty'). Given that is pretty much a final act, there's little reason to justify this two-line stub will ever be anything else. Hitting people and dying are not in themselves notable - they're two of humanity's favourite things to do. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:46, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You say "there's little reason to justify this two-line stub will ever be anything else" have you take a look at the other pages, for instande fy:Dakota Skye (pornografysk aktrise). Besides of that, coverage in multiple sources is enough for meeting WP:GNG :) SportsOlympic (talk) 12:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not a single citation or reference in the whole thing, I notes... (though I must say, she had nice clavicles) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:44, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - same rationale as original deletion, does not meet notability criteria. BTW, Alexandermcnabb - over here in the States, that site apparently isn't naughty enough, and she has unfortunately died. Although the current article incorrectly states the cause of death as Covid, which is nowhere mentioned in the source. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:48, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Alexandermcnabb. 2001:569:74D2:A800:2C14:A264:D5CB:C098 (talk) 23:23, 11 June 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:74D2:A800:2C14:A264:D5CB:C098 (talk) [reply]
Keep per SportsOlympic. Meets WP:GNG and has several resources available. --Kirito (talk) 03:10, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tabloid coverage for slapping her boyfriend. Later on, she died. If that is all one can summarize about a person's life, then no, insufficiently notable to justify an encyclopedic biography. Zaathras (talk) 03:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and the lack of content in the article proves such. Nominations are a dime a dozen. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 04:09, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The article may not have many sources right now (4 reliable, 3 of which say mostly the same thing), but just putting "dakota skye" into Google News shows quite a lot of results, though I don't know of their editorial oversight, nor how reliable they are. IMDB is of course WP:USERGENERATED, and should not be used as a reference, but beyond that, this article can possibly be salvaged with a bit of reworking and extra citations. Orcaguy | Write me | Mon œuvre 11:45, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can't just vaguely wave a hand at google hits (which are not at all an indicator of notability), declare "there may be some usable stuff out there somewheres!", and call for keeping the article. If you think there's usable, valid sources, then put in the legwork and attempt to improve the article. Otherwise this "vote" has no merit. Zaathras (talk) 14:49, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And that's why I gave it a tentative weak keep; I could very well have given it a weak delete as well. I'm not using my comment as a vote, but to provide another perspective for either other editors or the closer. If time allowed for it, I would gladly improve the article, but right now I unfortunately have none. Of course, as the article stands now, I don't think it meets BIO, but multiple reliable sources do seem to exist, and yes I am using vague language here, as I do believe the article has the possibility to be rescued considering the amount of sources available, but I have not yet ascertained whether or not any of it is useful. If you have anything else to add surrounding this, then I suggest leaving it on my talk page instead. Orcaguy | Write me | Mon œuvre 16:25, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should have just made it a comment and not a vote. And as this is a discussion pertaining to the deletion discission, no, it will remain here, not your talk page. Zaathras (talk) 02:54, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She happened to be a legit famous and successful actress, even though she appeared mostly in pornographic films and videos and also, she was a very public person. Maybe this article doesn't have many reliable sources, but you can look for some reliable sources. They are out there. You simply have to know where to look for them. Frschoonover (talk) 01:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another vague handwave at maybe real, potentially imaginary "sources out there". Zaathras (talk) 02:54, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SportsOlympic. Meets WP:GNG and has several sources cited. 2600:1700:EBD0:D910:C4D3:A7AB:699B:BE88 (talk) 02:16, 13 June 2021 (UTC) — 2600:1700:EBD0:D910:C4D3:A7AB:699B:BE88 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Too lazy to log in. Evb-wiki (talk) 03:42, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So you claim 2600:1700:EBD0 as yours, coming off a near-4-year hiatus. Interesting. Zaathras (talk) 12:54, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good faith much? Why are you so militant? Evb-wiki (talk) 13:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC) Tada. 2600:1700:EBD0:D910:8DA4:88EC:A0E3:4773 (talk) 13:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per SportsOlympic. Meets WP:GNG. 45.144.113.208 (talk) 08:00, 13 June 2021 (UTC — Preceding unsigned comment added by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/45.144.113.208 (talk) — 45.144.113.208 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment Rather interesting influx of IP editors and a long-dormant accounts showing up. Off-site meatpuppetry should be taken into consideration by the admins that close this down the road. Zaathras (talk) 12:54, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination is for failing under the General notability guideline. All of the sources present are independent of the topic, "[address] the topic directly and in detail", and at least 2/3 are plainly reliable. Now, four of the sources are circling around the subject's death, and the other two are about a single arrest for domestic battery; that's not a great breadth of coverage, but the guideline doesn't address that, only mentioning quantity. Is six sources (covering two events) enough? I've seen worse.
It feels like there might be more reliable content about the subject out there, but perhaps in circles and media with which I'm unfamiliar. I'm also curious about the LA coroner not releasing cause and manner of death pending an investigation, and if that turned into more, I'd hate to recreate the article; but that could also just be a red herring—it's just a feeling. I lean weakly towards keeping the article for the time being: it's not so patently wrong to keep it, and this would allow time to (a) find more sources if they're out there, and (b) resolve anything arising from her recent death. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:35, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For all the prattling about how There's Good Sources Out There, the scant content in the article is still 95% about her legal troubles and the citations therein are after she died. Next to nothing about her work. If she was "legit famous", the article would reflect this instead of being a stub that's little more than a police blotter. Still fails GNG. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 17:27, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are these interviews from around 2014/15 (NSFW warning...) [41], [42], [43]. Don't know if they count as WP:RS, but if so, then keep. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:21, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just a heads-up: Only in death (talk · contribs) at the reliable-source noticeboard said these aren't suitably reliable for use. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 20:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Is fleshbot.com a RS?" is something I personally need to see debated at the RS noticeboard. Sadly, I can't access any of those three in-depth analyses so thoughtfully provided by Lugnuts but I trust others will enjoy the read and judge them on their undoubted merits... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is notable, has several reliable sources also. There are few errors that can be fixed, could be briefed more.Aloolkaparatha (talk) 07:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG. Article has been expanded since nomination. 172.58.107.125 (talk) 08:20, 14 June 2021 (UTC) — 172.58.107.125 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete The sourcing is not good enough to pass the GNG in my opinion. Stuff like interviews (not done by a RS and without any commentary by the interviewer/writer), arrests, scandals and publicity stunts aren't good examples proving notability. When a porn star dies, and it's reported soon after it happens, some of the mainstream press will generally report on it. Those undoubtedly get lots of views. As pointed out by other voters above, there's really no decent coverage pertaining to her life or career or any RS suggesting she was notable in her field. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Per GoldenAgeFan1. She generated some minor scandals and seems to have only been noteworthy to the larger media for that alone, and her death. Nearly nothing notable about her work. ExRat (talk) 18:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources in the article seem sufficient to me to pass WP:GNG. --Jayron 32 13:11, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Jayron32. 172.58.107.149 (talk) 08:00, 16 June 2021 (UTC) — 172.58.107.149 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment Nearly a week into this AfD and there is still no evidence in her article asserting her notability, despite all the IPs trying to stuff the ballot box in her favor. She's known for exactly two things: assaulting her boyfriend and flashing her hooters in front of a George Floyd mural. Her work history in the article consists of nothing but a long list of companies she's worked for (run of the mill for any porn star). Three sources cited are tabloids, one is a sex-industry site (XBIZ), and another is Yahoo, while Koimoi itself is not a viable source. All share the same recycled information about her death and arrest while each being cited in the article an excessive amount of times. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 23:22, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Your arguments sound like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Obviously many editors and administrators like Jayron32 think the sources in the article are sufficient enough to pass WP:GNG. 172.58.107.149 (talk) 04:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)— 172.58.107.149 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Peter303x (talk) 00:22, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She was an internationally renowned actress. Look on the German page (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakota_Skye). Compagnon314 (talk) 07:32, 19 June 2021 (UTC)— Compagnon314 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment The German page adds no more reliable sources or information, although the list given of her award nominations makes fascinating reading. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:37, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep.~~ Keep ~~Appears to barely pass GNG. When in doubt, keep.~~ She suffers from journalistic puritanism. A juvenile Disney actress with 300 skits would have more "mainstream RS". The sources covering Ms Skye aren't deemed mainstream RS because of their subject matter. Wikipedia doesn't need to reflect that puritanism. Edited Her death was covered by the Toronto Sun and Fox. That's mainstream enough for me. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 03:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:NACTOR. Aside from obituaries and assaulting her boyfriend, I found no reliable secondary biographical sources to support notability. A search for sources using a pre-death date brought back only this primary source interview. There have been a few discussions about whether obituaries alone can support notability, but no consensus. See Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)/Archive 2018#Obituaries in the Times and NYT and Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)/Archive 2012#Obituaries as proof of notability?. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, based at least upon her nominations for the XBIZ Awards ([44]) and AVN Awards ([45]). I note a few interviews, e.g. Adult DVD Talk, XCritic and [46], although it's hard for me to assess whether they meet the requirements of WP:RS. I'm mindful that, given the area of Skye's work, interviews are not likely to be in the more mainstream reporting areas, but, relative to others in her field, she appears to have gained notability as Wikipedia understand the term. TJRC (talk) 19:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, per reasons given by Jayron32 and SchmuckyTheCat.--Surv1v4l1st ^{▌Talk|Contribs▌} 23:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe the numerous articles on her death demonstrate her notability. There is an additional obituary from the Atlanta Journal Constitution:[47] Thriley (talk) 19:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There are enough articles now to barely justify notability, and the main thing that convinced me was a News article

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

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

The result was 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. czar 21:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adelaide United eSports

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

Not notable enough for a stand-alone article, sourced only to the organisation, fails WP:GNG. Possibly upmerge? SportingFlyer T·C 17:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 17:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 17:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would add Brisbane Roar eSports to the discussion as seems to me it is the same discussion. --SuperJew (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Pbrks (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:13, 19 June 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. Unsure why relisted - consensus that NBAND is not met Nosebagbear (talk) 14:50, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Burning Leaves

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:30, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails WP:BAND. It's a fine ensemble but Wikipedia is a neither a music directory nor a collection of indiscriminate information. -The Gnome (talk) 16:50, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:11, 19 June 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. While numerically this may look closer to a "no consensus" with a slight delete margin, the "keep" arguments do not generally address or refute the assertion that the subject fails the GNG. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:50, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MKFM

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

No evidence of notability, nor is there likely to be, given its very limited broadcast range (see Community radio in the United Kingdom). Only citations in the article are for its award of broadcast licence. John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not blatant advertising but has been routinely edited to mislead. The topic's website is majority banner ads and clickbait. Fishplater (talk) 08:35, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of meeting WP:GNG in the article nor in my search for references. Jeepday (talk) 17:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 22:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks coverage to meet WP:GNG. Impeeriumalo (talk) 12:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Seems to meet WP:NRADIO. Community radio in the United Kingdom lists this community radio station as broadcasting more than one local DAB multiplex: DAB in Herts, Beds and Bucks (10D) --Whiteguru (talk) 12:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NRADIO although more information about the output of the station needs to be added as well as additional independent references. Rillington (talk) 13:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NRADIO and added an extra reference to assist.Warren (talk) 11:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This fails WP:GNG, and WP:NRADIO is not a SNG exempt from meeting GNG (very few are.) I do not think the references in the article are independent or reliable enough to show notability, and a BEFORE search brings up no sources which would help save the article. SportingFlyer T·C 14:27, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NMEDIA is a notability recommendation. Notability guideline discussion to setup talking points for the RfC to make NMEDIA/BCAST a Guideline is ongoing at WT:N. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:29, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources in the article seem reliable. I also found a few reliable sources which talk some of the station's programming: [48], [49], [50] and [51]. It was granted a full-time license last 2015. It was nominated as one of the Most Charitable Businesses at the annual MK Inspirational Awards last 2017. That said, along with the reasons above, the article is good enough to pass WP:BCAST. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources are either not reliable/independent (first two) or not significant coverage (last two). Furthermore, WP:BCAST is not a notability guideline exempted from needing to meet WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 18:58, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NMEDIA is a notability recommendation. Notability guideline discussion to setup talking points for the RfC to make NMEDIA/BCAST a Guideline is ongoing at WT:N. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:29, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:11, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:BCAST per above arguments. Sources presented above including the ones in the article are reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 00:45, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Peter303x (talk) 00:09, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Observation: from the discussion above, it seems clear that the case for this station, like that for thousands of other minor league, limited locality counterparts, stands or falls not on its own merits but on whether WP:BCAST is a policy or still just an essay. So I suggest that this debate needs to be escalated to a forum where that more fundamental question can be debated. Where is that forum? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, it's just an essay, and these stations must still meet WP:GNG/WP:NORG. I think an RfC is being teed up somewhere, though. SportingFlyer T·C 13:20, 19 June 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 00:25, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas Island Soccer Association

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

This article, a suspected hoax, contains no reliable sources and fails WP:GNG (there are no specific notability criteria for sports organizations). ZLEA _T\^C 00:08, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ZLEA _T\^C 00:08, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ZLEA _T\^C 00:08, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ZLEA _T\^C 00:08, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. ZLEA _T\^C 00:08, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't guess as to whether this is a hoax, but it certainly isn't notable; an extensive search turns up nothing. If it is removed, Cocos (Keeling) Islands Soccer Association should likely be removed as well, for the same reasons. BilledMammal (talk) 05:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 09:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't look to pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 10:10, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 00:43, 23 June 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) TheChronium 05:39, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Shoffner

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

Reserving a seat for a couple of million dollars to clock up airmiles should not be considered a notable feat. Even if the article had 3rd party sources, you kind of have to argue that this is a one time even and that coverage is by association. Space Tourism is here and paying your way to space should from this point on should be not be considered in and of itself a notable act. Seddon ^talk 19:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Astronauts assigned to an orbital mission are notable. Are we going to have the same conversation with each selection (see Christopher Sembroski last month). Hektor (talk) 19:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue we are heading full speed into a point in time where people paying for spaceflight is not longer a notable action, even if the flights themselves retain notability for the moment. Christopher Sembroski does fall cleanly on one side of this but his notability is somewhat tenuous. In that case though both his flight and selection process afford greater notability. John Shoffner wasn't part of a notable selection process and his flight will also be distinctly less notable. I think commercial spaceflight notability is at a point whereby maybe not everyone who flies is deserving of an article. Seddon ^talk 19:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to meet WP:NOTABLE as there's independent coverage of him and things he's done and the notability doesn't seem to be temporary. This is even before the Axiom flight that's the rationale presented in the AfD and that alone would seem to be noteworthy. -CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:45, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event particularly since its an event that has a reasonable prospect of not happening.©Geni (talk) 19:25, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Axiom Space's private astronaut missions are the only missions to take private astronauts to the International Space Station. This is significant as we record these pioneering days of space opening up to more and more people.
- This, by the way, is Adastra2022, his publicist, which might explain the rather promotional tone. AdoTang (talk) 14:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Meanwhile I checked his motor sports career and he is competing in the German endurance championship since 2015 ; his results are not trivial and he is in one of the top teams. He is in the entry list of 2021 24 Hours of Nürburgring with a factory-supported Mercedes-AMG GT3 Evo. Hektor (talk) 07:51, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:44, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:44, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Has a redirect/merger to Axiom Mission 2 been considered? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on merge and redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:46, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Still keep With a redirect or a merge we lose the racing career since it would make no sense to have it in the description of a space mission. Furthermore I keep thinking is is borderline notable based on his racing career only so with pilot of a Dragon on top of that he is notable. GT racer turned astronaut is an enough good story. Hektor (talk) 16:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you need to vote again. AdoTang (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ delete. His racing career at Nürburgring adds notability, but that's really it. The spaceflight is one event, and if I had a dollar for each member of the 1% who wants to go to space, I'd have enough dollars to know this is impressive but isn't super notable. Plus, as Geni said, there's a real chance this just won't even happen. However, as I mentioned, his racing career sort of sounds like enough for notability, but I'm not sure, so... AdoTang (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Just edited the article to remove promotional stuff. Looking it over, I'm seeing that there are other people who competed in Nürburgring 24 Hours that don't have articles, so I'm questioning whether this makes him notable at all. Maybe the mix of the space mission and the racing career makes him notable, though it's not like he actually won any of his races. Guess I'm removing "Weak". Delete. AdoTang (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draft/delete We may have more coverage when we get to the launch so draftifying this may be appropriate, but I concur that with the expansion of space tourism, non-professional people who go to space are not necessarily notable. "enough good story" is not notability, especially with a fairly substantial portion of Nürburgring participants not being notable. Reywas92^Talk 17:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:03, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Still keep~~ Comment - Pilot of a spacecraft which will fly to the International Space Station next year (not just a passenger, the pilot). Racing career in addition, which coverage in motorsport press since the mid 2010s. Hektor (talk) 10:37, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Struck dupe keep.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft but investigate more deeply before deleting. Seems likely to be potentially notable. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 01:49, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON. The claim to notability here is a space flight which hasn't even happened yet. His racing career fails WP:NSPORT. Not opposed to draftify with the privoso that it can't be moved into main space until after the flight occurs. As for notability of the flight itself and the pilot.... We Will know when that stops being notable when its stops getting press attention because it is routine. We aren't there yet.4meter4 (talk) 14:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Votes too close to call. Renewing for better consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Peter303x (talk) 00:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With reference to Seddon's comments, I don't think it's quite time yet to exclude private space travelers on orbital missions. (Suborbital flights will soon be a different story entirely.) Gildir (talk) 07:21, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG. Bungstnk (talk) 22:33, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not everyone who flies into "space" is necessarily notable, but, for now at least, everyone who performs an orbital space flight is notable, IMO, and he meets GNGJackattack1597 (talk) 10:27, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge - there are additional sources outside the article, such as this one and this one that indicate that straightforward notability is met. Then we look at BLP1E. Here...I am going to opt that since so many of these sources are covering multiple aspects, and that "racedriver" is not merely in titles but usually get a little coverage within each new source, I'm going to say he just makes it over the line. This is not a support of the de facto status quo of "all orbital space goers, or at least spacecrew, are notable", but based on the standard ruleset. A merge could well be in order, but I don't believe it's mandatory. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:56, 26 June 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.

[Trail1-1] "Jagan Timilsina". TRAIL RUNNING NEPAL. 29 November 2020. Retrieved 2020-02-03.

[2] "Sardars (Renewed)". Nepal Mountaineering Association. Retrieved 2021-05-25.

[ME-3] "Full List of Mount Everest Climbers". High Adventure Expeditions. Retrieved 2021-05-25.

[DRP-4] "भ्यू फ्रम मर्दी हिमाल". Dhorpatan. Retrieved 2021-06-04.

[GHR-5] "Great Himal Race 2017". Les Chevaliers du Vent Courir le Ciel. Retrieved 2020-02-03.

[GHR1-6] "Great Himal Race 2017". Trails by Endurance. Retrieved 2021-05-29.

[7] "Ultra Everest 135 Race Report". Ultra Runner Magazine. 7 March 2021. Retrieved 2021-05-25.

[8] ttps://theprint.in/ani-press-releases/director-nitesh-tiwaris-machaan-looking-to-create-a-positive-aura-in-the-society/680402/

[9] ttp://worldcat.org/identities/lccn-no2008181209/

[10] ttp://www.library.ncat.edu/dbm/dbi

[11] ttps://libguides.atu.edu/HR/videos

[12] ttps://www.lib.cuhk.edu.hk/uclib/html/featurelist/uceduhb.html

[13] ttp://www.ihcs.ac.ir/grids/168/109/filesFolder/ghanbari/CULTURAL%20GLOBAL%20BOOKS%20%20JOURNAL% 20ARTICLES.pdf

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]