- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. There is no support for this proposal. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Carole Bamford
- Carole Bamford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article has extremely questionable notability and terrible, intermittent and largely primary or press release sourcing. If anything, the notability case for the organic farm discussed in the article seems stronger than that of the owner. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:08, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:08, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Terrible pr-job of an article, but she is the founder of a brand that is well-known in the UK, & the sourcing can very easily be improved with stuff like this and (not very friendly) this. Johnbod (talk) 17:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- KEEP, the founder of well known Daylesford Organics should be considered 'notable'.Rodolph (talk) 06:56, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Technical question: For companies, there is no inherited hotability. But can people inherit notability from organisations, or does that rule work both ways? I'm not asking about general notability here, but about the specifics of conveying notability from firm to founder. Daylesford Organics has notably not had its own Wikipedia article created, sourced and deemed notable yet, so perhaps that should take priority. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Hi all, I've had another go at trying to improve it and will continue to do so until it's right and acceptable. Hopefully this has addressed some issues but please feel keep the suggestions coming and I'll get better at this with each recommendation Duderood (talk) 09:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC) Duderood
- Keep. Clearly passes WP:SIGCOV per the sources presented in the first AFD. Consensus at that discussion was clear that the subject is notable and quality in-depth independent sources exist, but the article itself needed improvement through editing. I can't see any reason to disagree with that assessment. WP:AFD is not cleanup.4meter4 (talk) 19:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- KEEP - plenty of news exists if you Google her name. I have added a few new citations. Peter303x (talk) 02:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:52, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Aeronautical College of Bangladesh
- Aeronautical College of Bangladesh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This has always relied on a single source, the subject. Searches of the usual types, including in Bengali, found only directory-type listings, self-published blog posts, advertorials, and other promo copy written by the college. The advice the author received a decade ago still applies. Without independent reliable sources, this does not meet WP:NSCHOOL, so is not suitable for Wikipedia. We don't have an article on the privately held parent company, Mollah Group of Industries, but I could entertain merging to sister concern Bismillah Airlines if there's an appetite for that. Worldbruce (talk) 17:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 17:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 17:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 17:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:ORG . 1 gnews hit. Unless there is significant coverage in Bengali this should be deleted. LibStar (talk) 04:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per the above. Fails WP:ORG. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:29, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. —ScottyWong— 17:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Vrats dasht
- Vrats dasht (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG. The subject claims to be "a term used by Armenian chroniclers" yet all the sources for that are Georgian, and none of them seem to be noteworthy. The only Armenian source in the article is the Melkonyan one, which never uses the phrase. There also seems to be a music source for the etymology of Erebuni, which isn't mentioned at all in the source. A Google Books search brings up only two sources, both Georgian. It seems that this supposedly Armenian phrase is only used by a small amount of Georgian sources, and not nearly enough to be notable enough for an article. Even a normal Google search brings up a deviantart account as the fourth top result. Steverci (talk) 17:39, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: First of all, the sources aren't "Georgian" as you have noted them to be, these "Georgian" sources are build up on medieval Armenian ones. Also, you are being biased. Since you say "none of them seem to be trustworthy." So first of all:
1) one of the sources contains studies of [Javakhisvhili] Who was a Georgian historian and a linguist whose voluminous works heavily influenced the modern scholarship of the history and culture of Georgia. He was also one of the founding fathers of the Tbilisi State University (1918) and its rector from 1919 to 1926.
2)You making it seem that it's not "trustworthy" makes me feel very confused. people make such decisions for calling things "not noteworthy" only after READING the sources and judging them after. as I know you are not a Georgian speaker so how could you even judge it? There is no place of unwanted nationalism in the fields of modern history and the fact that you call every Georgian source "not noteworthy" is heavily biased and corrupted. SonofJacob (talk) 12:29, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Abdulhaseebatd (talk) 19:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Abdulhaseebatd (talk) 19:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Abdulhaseebatd (talk) 19:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
I want to respond to Kevo327 regarding WP:V. It is represtenting Verifiability of the sources. Though, one of my source which claims that "Armenian scholars called the land vrats dasht" is from Ivane Javakhishvili Studies. who was a Georgian historian and a linguist whose voluminous works heavily influenced the modern scholarship of the history and culture of Georgia. He was also one of the founding fathers of the Tbilisi State University (1918) and its rector from 1919 to 1926. Who was a verified linguist/historian and very good of that time. SonofJacob (talk) 10:55, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
and a quick addition to that, WP:GNG is most likely regarding "unreliable" sources which I just proved you wrong about. SonofJacob (talk) 10:56, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- keep. Claiming that the term is false and undue just because it is covered mostly by Georgian sources is egregious and prejudicial. The article may need some serious rewrite and a more sharp focus on context, but Vrats Dasht is a real historical place name occurring in the medieval Armenian sources, first in the chronicle Ukhtanes of Sebastia, to the best of my knowledge. A quick search through academic sources using different transliterations of the name yields several results other than Georgian sources. It is mentioned as "Vrac' Dasht (Iberian Plain)" in Z. Arzoumanian's 1985 English-language edition of Ukthtanes's Chronicle (page 62). Also, "Vrac'dašt" (Plain of Iberia)" is mentioned in Robert H. Hewsen's oft-cited The geography of Ananias of Širak (Ašxarhacʻoycʻ) (1992, pages 203, n. 228, 206, n. 243); "vrac'-dašt (the land of the Georgians)" in Biro, Margit, "Shushanik's Georgian Vita", Acta Orientalia, XXXVIII, 1-2 (1984), page 196; "vrac'-dašt, plaine de Iberia" in Garsoïan, Nina G. (1998), L'Église arménienne et le grand schisme d'Orient. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, 574. ISBN 9789042906747, page 340. --KoberTalk 17:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- I have checked the Hewsen and Garsoïan sources and they do not "refer to lands of modern Northern Armenia", nor do they make any mention of all the Armenians living in those lands actually being assimilated Georgian's, as SonofJacob claims. It seems that this was never an official name and is just Iberia translated from Armenian. It is no more deserving of it's own article than say Deutschland. At the most, it could be mentioned in an etymology section. But it never became a common name. A few historians using the term hundreds of years ago is not noteworthy enough to have its own article. --Steverci (talk) 01:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
@Sterverci No. The "vrac dasht" is synonymous for the region of "Gugark" in Greater Armenia. The very region which, unfortunately, is being "Armenian-washed" even by the borders. According to Most Wikipedia articles Gugark's southernmost border is not really that deep but in reality, [village of Gugark] in middle of Lori region of Armenia proves that Gugark must've been around the area of what is now Gugark the village in Armenia. SonofJacob (talk) 19:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Potentially keep -- I know little of the subject, but it seems to me that the Nom is dismissing this on the basis of IDONOTLIKEIT. There is no reason, in principle, why a Georgian historian should not write about Armenia, and do so accurately. This may involve him expressing a Georgian bias, rather than an Armenian one. If there is such a bias, the solution is to keep the article but edit it to show where Armenian scholars believe the Georgian one was wrong. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete I mean it's clear that the article fails WP:GNG, this is the main issue. Hence, should be deleted. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:43, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
May I know which aspect of WP:GNG does this article fail, and where? I want a detailed answer. SonofJacob (talk) 14:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Delete it fails WP:GNG per nom, and it is Georgian propaganda. Monegasque100 (talk) 19:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC)- User blocked as sock. wikinights talk 22:44, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep For the reasons stated above and for this google book test.--Van Gogia (talk) 23:14, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Per all above. There's enough evidence here to support GNG (i.e. multiple independent refs with significant coverage), and it's clear that the writers of the sources in question are respectable scholars attached to respected institutions. Arguments for discrediting them seem to be based on their nationality which is clearly a biased and specious argument.4meter4 (talk) 19:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete per G5 by Bbb23. (non-admin closure) --MuZemike 19:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Eduardo Castañón
- Eduardo Castañón (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Only two significantly cited articles. It is not true that every single medical scientist working on problems related to COVID is notable enough to have an article here. DGG ( talk ) 17:20, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
The honors college at the university of houston
- The honors college at the university of houston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Promotional and not notable in its own right. It is not a college in the usual sense of the word. It is not a separate institution. It does not have its own building, but uses space in various parts of other buildings on campus. It does not teach its own courses, except for the one mentioned. It's important only to those associated with the university, or those thinking of attending it--and a focus on prospective students or clients is pretty much the definition of promotionalism DGG ( talk ) 16:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete I can’t find any RIS. Mccapra (talk) 04:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom - the institution is not notable in its own right, being more of a status given to students withing the UNiversity of Houston rather than a residential college. pinktoebeans (talk) 16:17, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Poste Montagnais, Quebec
- Poste Montagnais, Quebec (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Although the article says it is a community it is really an electrical substation and possibly a live in worksite. As such there is no notability. I checked for somewhere to redirect but could find nothing. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 15:36, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:40, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:32, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:32, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect to Poste Montagnais Airport since it's still a place. Reywas92Talk 19:05, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Recognized by the Quebec government's commission on geographic names as a "poste de transport". It was probably a lively community while the power station was under construction, even though it doesn't seem very lively today. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:58, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - used to come up in the Quebec media everytime there was a major power failure in Quebec. Hard to imagine that a location with both an airport and rail service isn't notable. Nfitz (talk) 15:52, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Per WP:GNG. Jamesallain85 (talk) 22:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. This discussion points to a real need for either a subject notability guideline for eSports teams, or an explicit statement that no SNG applies and it's the GNG or bust. Too much of the discussion was taken up arguing over NCORP and NSPORTS to get any real clarity about the quality of sourcing. It would be appropriate to revisit this in a year or so. Mackensen (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Stalwart Esports
- Stalwart Esports (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A not so famous eSports team. Just routine coverage. No international or regional ESL participation. Fails WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV. - Hatchens (talk) 15:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 15:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 15:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:17, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep/Comment: I'd like to see this nomination at least address the sources that led to this article being kept a few months ago? In the absence of that I still default to keep. Alyo (chat·edits) 15:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Alyo, This is a single event case i.e., Being in the news with a single event - "cross-border cooperation" - does not in itself mean that an entity (organization in this case) should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. -Hatchens (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- In the future you should say that in the AfD nomination; as it is the nom appears to ignore a lot of previous discussion about the article topic. Regardless, if the main reasoning for deletion is WP:CORPDEPTH, then I completely disagree with your interpretation and I don't think that the geopolitical aspect of Stalwarts activities falls under "brief mentions and routine announcements". I'm still a keep. Alyo (chat·edits) 21:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Alyo, This is a single event case i.e., Being in the news with a single event - "cross-border cooperation" - does not in itself mean that an entity (organization in this case) should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. -Hatchens (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - my Esports team! I joke, but I think I've been editing here longer than they have been e-sporting. Alyo makes a salient point here; what has changed since February this year? St★lwart111 07:34, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Stalwart111, it shouldn't have been passed in the Feb. Anyway, I will try to dig more into the page editors and it's reviewers history. - Hatchens (talk) 16:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- Well, if you disagree with an AFD close, that's a matter for WP:DRV. Otherwise, the relevant guide is WP:RENOM. WP:1E relates to people (not groups), WP:NCORP relates to companies (not sports teams), WP:ROUTINE is about statutory announcements and the like (not announcements by a group that have received significant coverage in reliable sources), and the history of the article isn't really something that is relevant to the subject's notability (but is relevant to WP:BEFORE which includes a check of the talk page which features the COI declaration you were looking for). St★lwart111 00:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Stalwart111, There has been a discussion on ESPORTS-related notability and its inclusion as per WP:NSPORTS. Currently, there is a clear and established lack of consensus to consider "Esports" a sport - here is the link of that discussion. Since, it's not classified as a "SPORTS TEAM" (in Wikipedia)... so we have to gauge this page under WP:NCORP guidelines. And, according to that... the organization simply fails because WP:CORPDEPTH (and rest of the coverages are nothing more or less than WP:ROUTINE). If we scrutinize it further, then you will find the page creator himself/herself is banned (indefinitely) - though I was quite skeptical to add CSD notice under G5 provision so I added AfD tag (2nd nomination). As you have rightly said, I could have gone through WP:DRV... But it's no more relevant because this new nomination has been added after 6 months. Feel free to rectify my interpretation, if it's found to be incorrect. -Hatchens (talk) 05:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- You expressed disagreement with the result of a previous AFD; the correct forum for that disagreement is DRV, not another AFD. It might not be disruptive (as renominating it might have been inside 6 months) but its still the wrong venue. The genesis of the article (and the involvement of banned editors) is irrelevant to the subject's notability. As for notability, I'm not sure why - having decided WP:NSPORTS is the wrong guideline - we should default to WP:NCORP for this unincorporated affiliation of esports participants...?
"we have to gauge this page under WP:NCORP guidelines"
... why? There are some corporations that the community has decided shouldn't be subject to that guideline. I'm not sure why we're looking for reasons to subject non-corporations to it. Where nothing else fits, we have WP:N and WP:GNG in particular. St★lwart111 08:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)- Stalwart111, I can't help with your interpretation on WP:DRV - you are good in twisting it based on your interest - like at ongoing AfD Discussion of Luca Soccer Club (& there... I extended my support for the same). Nevermind, you yourself know the best reason behind such duplicity. Now, if we look at this entity which has been listed with Crunchbase as "For profit" organization - by default we have to assume it under WP:NCORP. If not, then as per your likings if we consider it under the provision of WP:GNG - then also it fails. Btw, I don't know how that DRV got closed without much discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 11:46, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Stalwart111, also I didn't participate in earlier AfD discussion so there is no question of me having any prior disagreement. This nomination is a fresh call that too taken after 6 months gap. So, kindly treat it accordingly. - Hatchens (talk) 11:52, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- There's no "twisting" or "duplicity", it's a simple matter of WP:WRONGVENUE. But if all you have to offer this discussion is bludgeoning and personal attacks there's no point engaging with you. And raising an AFD where the nominator probably should have been referred to WP:ANI is an... interesting... tactic. St★lwart111 13:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Stalwart111, I am not responsible for your poor interpretation of wiki guidelines. However, before you go ahead with your WP:ANI threat tactic... I would recommend to add this AfD to an appropriate AfD discussion thread such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/eSports/afd to generate much wider general consensus (under the assumption of good faith). We never know, we both may learn couple of good things. -Hatchens (talk) 13:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- What are you on about? There's no threat; you were talking about a different discussion. Please read things properly. St★lwart111 13:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Stalwart111, it's ok, leave it. Can you help me to tag this AfD with proper AfD discussion category to generate wider consensus? We need much better inputs on how to categorize this entity. Thanks in advance. - Hatchens (talk) 14:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- No. Nothing about this has been good-faith. You didn't conduct proper WP:BEFORE checks, accused another editor of not declaring a COI when they clearly had, then accused someone else of undeclared paid editing and sock-puppetry, then accused me of duplicity and deliberately misinterpreting guidelines to make a WP:POINT. Why on Earth you think I would support any of that is beyond me. St★lwart111 14:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Stalwart111, it's ok, leave it. Can you help me to tag this AfD with proper AfD discussion category to generate wider consensus? We need much better inputs on how to categorize this entity. Thanks in advance. - Hatchens (talk) 14:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- What are you on about? There's no threat; you were talking about a different discussion. Please read things properly. St★lwart111 13:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Stalwart111, I am not responsible for your poor interpretation of wiki guidelines. However, before you go ahead with your WP:ANI threat tactic... I would recommend to add this AfD to an appropriate AfD discussion thread such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/eSports/afd to generate much wider general consensus (under the assumption of good faith). We never know, we both may learn couple of good things. -Hatchens (talk) 13:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- There's no "twisting" or "duplicity", it's a simple matter of WP:WRONGVENUE. But if all you have to offer this discussion is bludgeoning and personal attacks there's no point engaging with you. And raising an AFD where the nominator probably should have been referred to WP:ANI is an... interesting... tactic. St★lwart111 13:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- You expressed disagreement with the result of a previous AFD; the correct forum for that disagreement is DRV, not another AFD. It might not be disruptive (as renominating it might have been inside 6 months) but its still the wrong venue. The genesis of the article (and the involvement of banned editors) is irrelevant to the subject's notability. As for notability, I'm not sure why - having decided WP:NSPORTS is the wrong guideline - we should default to WP:NCORP for this unincorporated affiliation of esports participants...?
- Stalwart111, There has been a discussion on ESPORTS-related notability and its inclusion as per WP:NSPORTS. Currently, there is a clear and established lack of consensus to consider "Esports" a sport - here is the link of that discussion. Since, it's not classified as a "SPORTS TEAM" (in Wikipedia)... so we have to gauge this page under WP:NCORP guidelines. And, according to that... the organization simply fails because WP:CORPDEPTH (and rest of the coverages are nothing more or less than WP:ROUTINE). If we scrutinize it further, then you will find the page creator himself/herself is banned (indefinitely) - though I was quite skeptical to add CSD notice under G5 provision so I added AfD tag (2nd nomination). As you have rightly said, I could have gone through WP:DRV... But it's no more relevant because this new nomination has been added after 6 months. Feel free to rectify my interpretation, if it's found to be incorrect. -Hatchens (talk) 05:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Well, if you disagree with an AFD close, that's a matter for WP:DRV. Otherwise, the relevant guide is WP:RENOM. WP:1E relates to people (not groups), WP:NCORP relates to companies (not sports teams), WP:ROUTINE is about statutory announcements and the like (not announcements by a group that have received significant coverage in reliable sources), and the history of the article isn't really something that is relevant to the subject's notability (but is relevant to WP:BEFORE which includes a check of the talk page which features the COI declaration you were looking for). St★lwart111 00:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Stalwart111, it shouldn't have been passed in the Feb. Anyway, I will try to dig more into the page editors and it's reviewers history. - Hatchens (talk) 16:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: One of the editors Abhayesports tried to reach out and gave one of the highly vague lecture on "South Asia Esports Scenario" which can be accessed via this link - User_talk:Hatchens#About South Asian Esport Scenario. Also, the ID which has tried to reach out to me tried to create a page for the founder of this not-so-notable esports team. High Possibility: WP:COI/WP:UPE/WP:SOCK. -Hatchens (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Hatchens: It's already known that Abhayesports has a COI with Salwart Esports (see Talk:Stalwart Esports); hence why, I assume, they have not included themselves in this Afd discussion. Moreover, I believe they were just trying to inform you as to why there is no ESL participation (which isn't a necessity for notability -- I'm not sure why that was included in the deletion rationale). Let's AGF here. — Pbrks (talk) 16:27, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- Reply: Hatchens, I Could've commented it here but i'm under a COI with Stalwart Esports, My only reason to write it to you privately was to aware you of the esport scenario in south asia since you've mentioned that it doesn't have ESL Participation. it's clearly evident that you're not acting in a good faith, you're accusing me of Sockpuppetry just because i tried to enlighten you about the information you didn't have? Did it hurt your ego? I have no idea who you are but as far as the sources are considered, They clearly satisfy WP:GNG , WP:SIGCOV and WP:VG. Also that wasn't a vague lecture but something you didn't have idea of. The proof to this is your response to my message, you clearly don't have an idea of what Major events are and you don't know the difference in between South Asia and South East Asia, i've explained it to you there tho. Me being nice to you there doesn't mean you have the right to speak anything you want,. Please assume good faith here. Good Luck Warm Regards---Abhay EsportsTalk To Me 16:28, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- Pbrks, exactly bro, this is why i didn't comment here, and wanted to just simply tell him that ESL isn't that big in south asia as much it is in NA or EU or some other region. Warm Regards---Abhay EsportsTalk To Me 16:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- Pbrks, There is no WP:COI declaration on user page / user talk page of Abhayesports. - Hatchens (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- There is a declaration the article's talk page with a permanent link: [1]. — Pbrks (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- Hatchens, Only if you'd have actually researched before putting it up for AfD you'd have found out that it's declared over the Talk Page of Stalwart Esports, Moreover i've removed it from my Talk Page because i didn't want to edit Stalwart Esports anymore due to the COI, that's why the last edit i made was just to update the logo. Warm Regards---Abhay EsportsTalk To Me 16:41, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Hatchens: It's already known that Abhayesports has a COI with Salwart Esports (see Talk:Stalwart Esports); hence why, I assume, they have not included themselves in this Afd discussion. Moreover, I believe they were just trying to inform you as to why there is no ESL participation (which isn't a necessity for notability -- I'm not sure why that was included in the deletion rationale). Let's AGF here. — Pbrks (talk) 16:27, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - Unless there is a reason as to why the given sources that Alyo has provided are not sufficient. — Pbrks (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- Pbrks, it's fails as per WP:NCORP and most of its coverages are WP:ROUTINE.Period! - Hatchens (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- No reason WP:NCORP should apply, and WP:ROUTINE isn't relevant here. St★lwart111 08:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Pbrks, it's fails as per WP:NCORP and most of its coverages are WP:ROUTINE.Period! - Hatchens (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Delete: In total agreement with the analysis of Hatchens. The sources are too weak. These kind of routine coverages doesnt add upto WP:NCORP.. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 04:35, 16 September 2021 (UTC)Editor has now been blocked as a sock-puppet. St★lwart111 03:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete If we take WP:RS as a basic criteria, there are two sources that shine. First is Indian Express [2] and second one from Vice [3]. Both are about same event (which brings in the question of intellectual independence!) and unfortunately are very borderline to WP:CORPDEPTH. There are bits and pieces which could be considered but as a whole, sort of not getting there. This is very classic when reporters tell what is being told and there is no other efforts for fact check or to enrich the news by more in-depth research. That being said, good possibility that company can become notable in future and recreation should be allowed without prejudices, ideally via AFC. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:33, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- Again, this isn't a company so why on Earth would we apply WP:CORPDEPTH and set an inexplicably higher bar than WP:GNG? Those two sources aren't written by the same people, or even published on the same continent, and they were published more than a month apart. Where is the question of intellectual independence? Multiple people writing about the same thing is exactly what we mean when we talk about significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources. St★lwart111 02:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note to closing Admin: Nomadicghumakkad was called in here to make a vote by Hatchens by pinging him on his talk page while i was trying to give him information about ESL and South Asia. My conversation at Hatchens Talk Page. Also considering that this Article was once subjected to AfD and was stormed by a group who wanted to get it deleted, i'm not accusing anyone but there could be possibility of the same group acting again. I'd request Admins to look into their accounts as well because the information they're trying to push into this AfD is incorrect, i've given a brief information of why ESL isn't active in south asia at hatchen's talk page. Warm Regards---Abhay EsportsTalk To Me 10:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- Again, this isn't a company so why on Earth would we apply WP:CORPDEPTH and set an inexplicably higher bar than WP:GNG? Those two sources aren't written by the same people, or even published on the same continent, and they were published more than a month apart. Where is the question of intellectual independence? Multiple people writing about the same thing is exactly what we mean when we talk about significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources. St★lwart111 02:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: I know there are few users who are in the hurry to close this discussion. So, I would request to those... please hold patience. Regarding Nomadicghumakkad, he/she is one of the AFC Reviewers whom I trust for withholding Wikipedia guidelines, and let me assure you he/she takes unbiased/uninfluenced call irrespective of what I say. So, it's not a WP:CANVAS - I assure everyone out here. Despite he/she voting for delete, I had a doubt on this entity's classification on Wikipedia - is it WP:GNG or WP:NCORP? To clear it, I religiously went to WP:TEA, raised my concern, and got this particular reply from Usedtobecool. There is still an ambiguity on how to classify an esports team but as per the lede (of this entity) - "it seems to meet the criteria given at NCORP". So, as of now, we will continue to treat it as an "ORGANIZATION" till we get a much better classification. So, my humble request is don't get excited. I'm quite thankful for Abhayesports for declaring WP:COI which I missed seeing in the first place because the tag was put on the entity's talk page rather than on the user page. Now, could you guys just excuse with your interpretations and wait for other's opinions so that a wider consensus can be derived. NOTE: We will use this AfD discussion as one of the case studies to initiate a discussion at Category_talk:Esports_organizations or Talk:Esports or Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sports and suggest launching a Wikipedia Project Esports to discuss and frame proper guidelines for Esports organizations (Thanks to Gråbergs Gråa Sång for suggesting this). -Hatchens (talk) 12:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment It's a legit question if this is canvasing or not and unfortunately there is no straight answer to it. Hatchens asked to look at this AFD and figure if there was a COI problem. They never said go and participate. So, solely basis on past experiences, theoretically, this is not canvassing. But that's theory of course. In practical sense, if someone tags me to look at an AFD for whatsoever reasons, my likelihood of commenting increases. But I felt this discussion could use some more diverse opinions and hence came here. About Eports teams being a company or not - the way I would look at it, if they are making money in any format (even through cash prizes), they should be considered as a company. But that's my view. Feel free to strike my comment if you felt it didn't give a new perspective and came in here only to support the nominator by adding another invaluable keep. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 00:56, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- Nomadicghumakkad, I trust and value your assessment. I have given necessary explaination. Let the closing admin take the call on your vote. In the meanwhile, keep up the good work at AfC reviewing. - Hatchens (talk) 02:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 01:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 01:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete NCORP applies to organizations of any type whatsoever. There are similar problems for profit making commercial companies as with volunteer organization --basically, they all live by publicity, and will use the press to get it. For all of them, material discussing only routine activities and funding is not enough to show notability. That's the reason for the NCORP restriction--not the desire to reduce coverage, but the need to reduce coi editing. DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- It's not a corporation or an organisation. It has no constitution or membership guidelines or process for joining. It's not even a traditional sporting club (which, as a fan, you can become a member of). It's a sports team. The fact that their sport isn't considered a traditional sport does not mean that any kind of organised participation should be disingenuously conflated with the constitution of a formal organisation. St★lwart111 11:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- NORG covers any
group of more than one person formed together for a purpose
, exceptsmall groups of closely related people such as families, entertainment groups, co-authors, and co-inventors covered by WP:Notability (people)
andnon-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams
. If a group not covered by the exceptions has another specific notability guideline, it can be presumed notable based on that, without meeting NORG (not a direct quote, but also from NORG). When one concedes that esports team are not a traditional sports team and therefore not covered by NSPORTS, and that there is no specific guideline for esports teams, and that it is not among the exceptions listed, then it's simply logical that it is covered by NORG. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:04, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- NORG covers any
- Yes, it's clearly a sports team. That the NSPORTS crowd doesn't want it, or doesn't know what to do with esports yet, does not make that untrue. There have been recent DRV discussions about whether NCORP should apply to corporations ahead of GNG, given the extent to which that guideline seems to have moved away from community sentiment. There's no justification for applying it here except as a tool for setting an artificially higher inclusion threshold, and the arguments above make that plainly clear. St★lwart111 13:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- WP:NSPORTS says there is no community consensus to consider esports a sport (sport is something to which the guideline NSPORTS applies; this is the only definition that's useful here). Even if this AFD did agree it's a sport, there is no corresponding list of criteria at NSPORTS. In absence of alternative specific guidelines for any group of more than one person doing something, NORG applies. The purpose of AFD is to apply existing guidelines and policies as they are, not as one thinks they ought to be. The debates are over interpretation, not merit. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:20, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- Usedtobecool, you know what's the irony - Stalwart111 forcing us to accept this eSports team as per WP:NSPORTS despite we clearly telling him/her... at this moment eSports are not considered to be part of NSPORTS. On the other hand, at an another AfD he/she doesn't want a football club - Luca Soccer Club to be assessed under WP:NFOOTY because he/she thinks WP:GNG is the appropriate guideline and keep the page. I am done explaining and I surrender. I have not seen such poor interpretation of Wiki guidelines on AfD discussions. - Hatchens (talk) 15:56, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- WP:NSPORTS says there is no community consensus to consider esports a sport (sport is something to which the guideline NSPORTS applies; this is the only definition that's useful here). Even if this AFD did agree it's a sport, there is no corresponding list of criteria at NSPORTS. In absence of alternative specific guidelines for any group of more than one person doing something, NORG applies. The purpose of AFD is to apply existing guidelines and policies as they are, not as one thinks they ought to be. The debates are over interpretation, not merit. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:20, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- On the contrary, my argument there is that WP:GNG should apply because WP:GNG is our baseline notability criteria. My argument is the same here. It doesn't matter if that club doesn't pass WP:NFOOTY, because it already passes WP:GNG. And it doesn't matter if this sporting team isn't considered a sporting team or doesn't pass WP:NCORP, because it already passes WP:GNG. It's pretty simply, really. St★lwart111 00:11, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, it's clearly a sports team. That the NSPORTS crowd doesn't want it, or doesn't know what to do with esports yet, does not make that untrue. There have been recent DRV discussions about whether NCORP should apply to corporations ahead of GNG, given the extent to which that guideline seems to have moved away from community sentiment. There's no justification for applying it here except as a tool for setting an artificially higher inclusion threshold, and the arguments above make that plainly clear. St★lwart111 13:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- It's not a corporation or an organisation. It has no constitution or membership guidelines or process for joining. It's not even a traditional sporting club (which, as a fan, you can become a member of). It's a sports team. The fact that their sport isn't considered a traditional sport does not mean that any kind of organised participation should be disingenuously conflated with the constitution of a formal organisation. St★lwart111 11:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: I was investigating the Stalwart for paranormal activity and happened to eyeball check this out for a possible COI which isn't the case, just a random chance as two people might have the same date of birth. The New indian Express and the Vice are good; but checking out the associated "Stalwart Freestyle" starts to bring in Pakistan based resources such as [4], leading to a solid keep; albeit the article might need a move(rename)/redirect(s). Its an alt to deletion though. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Although I voted for a keep in previous AfD based on Alyo's sources but DGG's arguments above make sense to me. ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: There are people argues that it should pass WP:NCORP, but there are no consensus on that and are just personal opinions. Until then WP:GNG that matters which it passes already. - The9Man (Talk) 20:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Stalwart Esports has never played an international tournament. It is just a small organization that participates in local tournaments. The team also has never won any major local tournament.Aaditya.abh (talk) 02:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- The page contains only information regarding pubgm and free fire, so this comment should be taken in regard of these games.Aaditya.abh (talk) 02:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Aaditya.abh, Hey, i don't think winning any tournament determines notability. But just to answer your question, Stalwart has played all the Pubg Mobile Pro League seasons till date which is a Major PUBG mobile tournament(PP- $200000+) , and has played multiple seasons of Free Fire Indian Championship. Again, even these things don't determine notability on wikipedia. Read WP:GNG. Just helping you out since you're a new esport editor on wikipedia. Warm Regards---Abhay EsportsTalk To Me 02:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Abhayesports I don't believe Pubg mobile pro league is a international tournament. You can say it's a qualifying tournament for international tournament. Secondly, playing any 'major' local tournament, shouldn't be considered note worthy. There are dozens of teams who play various pubgm and free fire tournaments in a year, but I don't think that should make them notable.Aaditya.abh (talk) 02:46, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Aaditya.abh, Oh i see, At the first you say that They haven't played any major tournament hence aren't deemed to be fit on wikipedia later you say playing any major local tournament shouldn't be considered note worthy. You're clearly confused. Also you're actually repeating what i said. Winning or loosing tourneys doesn't make any team notable, They should pass certain parameters on wikipedia to be considered as notable. I'm just assuming good faith here :). Warm Regards---Abhay EsportsTalk To Me 02:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Abhayesports I don't think you are getting my point. Anyways, I once created a page for S8UL Esports which was deleted because of not passing the notability test. It's afd. The organization is superior in notability to stalwart Esports. The page I created can be still seen HERE. Now if that page was deleted for failing notability, the same arguments can be applied here. Peace ✌️☮️Aaditya.abh (talk) 02:59, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Also, I believe you are taking this personally because of you having a COI with the topic of the page in question. Aaditya.abh (talk) 03:12, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Aaditya.abh, Hey again, As said i am assuming good faith and just trying to correct your information. Moreover COI is the reason why i haven't made any vote here. But i believe COI can't stop me from defending false information considering that most of the admins might not be well versed with esports and would think that what you've written is correct when it's not. You've posted misleading information above classifying Pro League as a minor event and disregarding FFIC. So i believe it's my duty to raise awareness on the same because a $200k tourney can't be classified as minor. We don't take things personally here, this is a public encyclopaedia and we're all here to contribute. If i wasn't Assuming good faith i'd have dig up that you're doing this just because i commented on your S8UL AfD and disregarded those invalid sources as RS. But i didn't because my sole reason of replying to you was to correct your knowledge on Minor and Major Events in PUBG Mobile. Also just researched another thing, their current PUBG mobile lineup are the former PMPL Champions. Warm Regards---Abhay EsportsTalk To Me 06:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Abhayesports I don't believe Pubg mobile pro league is a international tournament. You can say it's a qualifying tournament for international tournament. Secondly, playing any 'major' local tournament, shouldn't be considered note worthy. There are dozens of teams who play various pubgm and free fire tournaments in a year, but I don't think that should make them notable.Aaditya.abh (talk) 02:46, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- The page contains only information regarding pubgm and free fire, so this comment should be taken in regard of these games.Aaditya.abh (talk) 02:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: Per Alyo and Stalwart111. This is an eSports team, not a company. It was agreed in the previous discussion that the article should be kept. Article is good enough to pass WP:SPORTBASIC. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 04:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. As an esport team, it's not clear NCORP or NSPORT is the appropriate guideline to apply (i.e. it's controversial either way). As such, for lack of a clear SNG WP:GNG is our default. Based on the evidence from the first AFD, GNG is met.4meter4 (talk) 19:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Editing break
- Delete per DGG. When it comes to organizations, we need to be mindful that Wikipedia isn't a platform to leverage routine coverage into a promotional tool. I don't believe this meets the WP:GNG with more than WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs, but WP:ORG is also instructive. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:29, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete team has not achieved notable results. They have yet to appear in an S-tier tournament in PUBG which I would assume would be the baseline for a WP:ESPORTS page if it was created. Swordman97 talk to me 23:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- Reply @Swordman97:, I don’t think participation in a certain tournament makes any team notable(as per my understanding of wikipedia’s guidelines), participation in major’s is a notability criteria for liquipedia but wikipedia follows certain guidelines and as per WP:GNG this subject has several WP:RS which meet the guidelines. Moreover, if all the teams who have participated in major’s are notable to have a page on Wikipedia then there are many esport teams out there who should be on WP, moreover can you kindly share the link to the specific guideline about having participation in a major to be notable for WP, Also, just to answer your query, Stalwart has participated in all the 4 seasons of Pubg Mobile Pro league South Asia, which is a major Pubg Mobile tournament, although I don’t believe it matters but still just answering your query. Warm Regards---Abhay EsportsTalk To Me 00:42, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
- Participation in the highest level of a sport is the easiest way to achieve notability, which in this case would be the
continental series or global championshipglobal championship. They have not achieved that yet and they are not an especially winning or notable team so they don't need an article. Swordman97 talk to me 04:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)- @Swordman97: This is not a valid reason for keeping/deleting an article, as any sort of WP:NESPORTS does not exist. Please explain why the sources present in the article do not demonstrate notability according to WP:GNG. — Pbrks (talk) 04:36, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
- WP:SPORTSCRIT is what I was referencing. In any case I agree with Nomad with their view of the article. The sources are too trivial. Swordman97 talk to me 04:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
- WP:SPORTSCRIT does not apply to esports articles, as WP:NSPORTS does not in general. I fail to see how the sources are trivial. The Vice, The Esports Observer, and Dot Esports articles contain significant non-trivial coverage of the topic. — Pbrks (talk) 05:03, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
- WP:SPORTSCRIT is what I was referencing. In any case I agree with Nomad with their view of the article. The sources are too trivial. Swordman97 talk to me 04:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
- Participation in the highest level of a sport is the easiest way to achieve notability, which in this case would be the
- Couple of sources used on the page are not considered reliable. Sportskeeda and The Times of Esports are not considered reliable.Gyan.Know (talk) 02:37, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Gyan.Know: You may be correct (I haven't checked The Times of Esports) that these are not considered reliable. However, Vice, The Indian Express, The Esports Observer, and Dot Esports are. Please explain why these sources are not sufficient to demonstrate notability. — Pbrks (talk) 04:36, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note - Aaditya.abh, who has participated in this discussion previously, changed their username to Gyan.Know. — Pbrks (talk) 04:42, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Pbrks: The sources you mentioned latter are reliable and contribute to page's notability.
- But as you can see on the page, some of the information provided is original research and no sources are provided as to that. In short, lack of sources for information on the page. Gyan.Know (talk) 04:52, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Gyan.Know: This isn't how WP:AfD works. In general, if reliable, secondary, independent sources with significant coverage of the topic exist, then the article satisfies WP:GNG. An article may contain original research or some poor sources, but that is not a valid reason for deletion. — Pbrks (talk) 04:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Pbrks: The Free Fire section of the page does not cite a single source. And going accordingly to your points, it is okay for that information to be there? Gyan.Know (talk) 05:06, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - Agree with nom. Not notable. Gentleman wiki (talk) 18:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
- Gentleman wiki do you mind specifying wihch part of the nom you agree with? That the team is not famous because they've not been in an ESL tournament, which isn't based on any policy guideline, or that sources like this, this, and this fail sigcov and GNG, which seems...like a statement that needs some justification. Alyo (chat·edits) 17:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - It seems to me that the crux of this debate is whether NCORP applies to this esports team or not, and for this I feel we should ignore the letter of the policies, as clearly they are insufficient for this edge case and instead consider the intent, which is as a line of defence against the proliferation of corporate spam. Per this SPI, this article was created by a sockmaster pushing very hard for articles about the matter and other associated individuals which suggests a COI; as such, I feel it is appropriate to consider this under NCORP which means delete is the appropriate decision. I was actually expecting this line of argument to lead to a "Keep" !vote when I started down it, but I guess I was wrong BilledMammal (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- BilledMammal, I'd like to understand your rationale here... are you saying that because the creator might have a COI (which you agree is suggested, but not confirmed) we should apply an irrelevant - but stricter - guideline to ensure it is deleted to protect the project from said suggested COI? St★lwart111 00:03, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- In a way. It is unclear whether the WP:NCORP applies; there are arguments for and against. I probably lean towards the "for" argument, as these teams are for-profit entities that relying on popularity, at least in part, for their revenue.
- However, I decided that the situation was sufficiently nebulous that we would be better off considering the spirit of WP:NCORP, not the word, and to do this I thought we should look into the background of the article's creators; did they create it "under a cloud", is it reasonable to expect a COI or UPE to exist. To my surprise, it turned out that such a cloud existed, and thus it seems in line with the spirit of NCORP to apply it, and as there seems to be a consensus that the article should be deleted if NCORP applies, the only reasonable result, in my opinion, is delete. BilledMammal (talk) 00:15, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- I mean, the author having a COI wouldn't be a reason for deletion in the first place, so applying an inapplicable guideline just to produce that result doesn't seem appropriate. The author's COI, or potential COI, isn't even something WP:NCORP considers, so it seems particularly bloody-minded to apply that guideline as some kind of strawman. The arguments in favour of deletion want to disingenuously apply WP:NCORP for the same reason; the subject doesn't pass that guideline so if they can argue that guideline should apply, they can have it deleted. "if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid". This fish should not be expected to climb that tree. St★lwart111 00:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- BilledMammal, I'd like to understand your rationale here... are you saying that because the creator might have a COI (which you agree is suggested, but not confirmed) we should apply an irrelevant - but stricter - guideline to ensure it is deleted to protect the project from said suggested COI? St★lwart111 00:03, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep The sources look fine to me, and I don't think any higher standard above WP:GNG should be applied here. Whether the creator of the page was or was not a spammer or did or did not have a conflict of interest is irrelevant; what matters is whether it meets the applicable policies and guidelines, and in my opinion, it does. Mlb96 (talk) 05:36, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep the subject passes our WP:GNG. The first AFD, also found that GNG is met. Lightburst (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. I agree with DGG that news coverage of routine doings of commercial organizations is insufficient for notability and that WP:NCORP applies. Besides, due to the problem of paid news in India, the Indian new sources cited in the article cannot be relied upon. Sandstein 20:00, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- Who is going to tell Wikipedia:WikiProject India that most of their articles will need to be deleted? These contributions are getting insane, and insanely bad faith. St★lwart111 02:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete As I have argued above, WP:NCORP applies, and the topic fails it.Even WP:GNG is not met. WP:GNG is a criterion for a presumption that if these sources exist, it must be a topic worth knowing about (encyclopedic knowledge), and there must be more, enough to support a detailed and balanced article. The links that have been presented here for the purpose do not inspire confidence wrto. either. It was interesting and newsworthy when people from rival nations cooperated and it brought temporary media attention; that is not enough for notability which is more permanent. We could as well use the same references and write 2020 cooperation between Indian and Pakistani gamers to participate in the PUBG Mobile Pro League South Asia after PUBG was banned in India, except it's not a notable event under the same sources. How can the same sources make an event non-notable and a group of people notable? They don't. If this is not an organisation, it's a group of people involved in an event. That event is not notable and regardless, the group fails WP:BIO1E. The only escape is to make this group a sports team which is against community consensus. Even if it weren't, it fails any reasonable sporting guideline we might have come up with, as the coverage is about a single event, the filling of roster (not playing) for a competition that is not played at the highest level.Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:41, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Agree that WP:NCORP applies here. NCORP is broader than WP:NSPORT when it comes to sports teams, which are "organizations" -- NSPORT would be an "escape route" from NCORP application by way of specificity, but since esports are not categorized as sports for the purposes of NSPORT, this article can't escape NCORP. Subject fails NCORP. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:24, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
- Luckily, amid all of that hand-wringing, confusion, disagreement, escapism, and guideline boundary-setting, we still have WP:GNG, right? Phew. St★lwart111 02:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- We don't actually, because whenever NCORP is applicable it has priority application over GNG (it overrides GNG). NCORP is famous for this. — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- Stalwart111, your sarcastic tone has been duly noted. -Hatchens (talk) 17:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- We don't actually, because whenever NCORP is applicable it has priority application over GNG (it overrides GNG). NCORP is famous for this. — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- Luckily, amid all of that hand-wringing, confusion, disagreement, escapism, and guideline boundary-setting, we still have WP:GNG, right? Phew. St★lwart111 02:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep I'm unsure about the specifics of WP:NCORP vs WP:NSPORT which seems like a wider discussion, but for me the article passes WP:GNG , and nothing has shown the original decision should be overriden. Vanteloop (talk) 13:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Vanteloop: It isn't complicated, but it has a certain logic that needs to be followed. It isn't about a wider discussion, just about logic:
- NSPORT deals only with things commonly held to be sport, and not with things only sometimes referred to as a sport or things that share some common elements with sport
- The community does not hold that esports are sport (there is a lack of consensus on the issue of whether they are or aren't, which has been noted down)
- Therefore: NSPORT doesn't apply to esports -- so what does?
- Regardless of differences between esports and sport, esports teams, like sports teams, are organizations
- NCORP applies to organizations in general (had NSPORT not existed, the applicable guideline for sports teams would have been NCORP)
- therefore: it is NCORP that applies to esport teams
- this esports team as a subject of encyclopedic coverage doesn't pass NCORP (for obvious reasons)
- when NCORP is the controlling norm and subject doesn't pass NCORP, said subject is non-notable, because there is no other way notability can be established or presumed for it (such as GNG, because NCORP, within it's area of application, is applied not in tandem with GNG, but instead of GNG)
- therefore: the subject is non-notable
- and ultimately: this article (being that it deals with a non-notable subject) should be deleted — Alalch Emis (talk) 23:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
- "Meets WP:GNG" has one step: "1. Subject meets WP:GNG." Besides which, the WP:NTEAM section of WP:NSPORTS makes it quite clear that NSPORTS doesn't have criteria for teams anyway, and says the fall-back for sports teams and clubs is WP:GNG, not WP:NCORP:
"This guideline does not provide any general criteria for the presumed notability of sports teams and clubs. Some sports have specific criteria. Otherwise, teams and clubs are expected to demonstrate notability by the general notability guideline."
. Your novel 10-step interpretation isn't supported by that guideline at all. St★lwart111 09:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)- I do think it's a useful summary of the argument, but I think the situation is genuinely quite murky. WP:NCORP is quite clear that sports teams are not covered:
"The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams."
However, whether esports teams are "sports teams" is the question at issue here! If they aren't sports teams, then they are clearly a "group of people organized together for a purpose" and so are covered by WP:NCORP. If they are sports teams, then they are specifically exempted from WP:NCORP and covered by WP:NSPORTS (which as you point out just defers directly to WP:GNG for sports teams). So Alalch Emis's point (4) is incorrectly stated, and in fact the argument for which notability guideline to apply hinges on whether esports teams are sports teams. Suriname0 (talk) 03:32, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
- I do think it's a useful summary of the argument, but I think the situation is genuinely quite murky. WP:NCORP is quite clear that sports teams are not covered:
- "Meets WP:GNG" has one step: "1. Subject meets WP:GNG." Besides which, the WP:NTEAM section of WP:NSPORTS makes it quite clear that NSPORTS doesn't have criteria for teams anyway, and says the fall-back for sports teams and clubs is WP:GNG, not WP:NCORP:
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Joe (talk) 09:08, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Syed Ali Khansahib Bukhari
- Syed Ali Khansahib Bukhari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
After removing some unrelated sources that don't mention the subject ([11] [12]), as well as some spam and a Google Maps entry (not going to link here), there are only two sources left: a commercial website for the shrine of this Sufi saint (fails WP:INDEPENDENT) and Walter Roper Lawrence's book The Valley of Kashmir, which I've searched but doesn't seem to mention the apparently obscure saint. I've searched both Google Scholar and normal Google for a reliable source to rewrite the article, but I've found none (some hits concern 'Ala' al-Din al-Bukhari, who is a different person), which makes me think that the subject does not meet our notability criteria. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Hii, so it has lack of reliable sources?? Ttttt321 (talk). 15:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Part of the problem is that that the article has been done so badly, without specific citations to reliable sources (or any sources) that I cannot even tell if the article is a spoof. For example, if you are going to cite a book, you could at least provide page numbers. If you are going to cite a news site, you could at least provide the article title and the date of the article.
The only useful citations I could find in the article were the "shrine's" business site and google maps which at least confirmed that there was some sort of "shrine" to Syed Ali Alaa-Ud-Din in the village of Chewdara, which is in Budgam district, J&K. The Google maps link also told me that there was a "shrine" to Syed Said-ud-Dun on the same plot of land. So I looked at District Budgam, Places of Interest, which says:
- "TOMB OF SYED TAJ-UD-DIN AND SYED ALLA-UD-DIN"
- "ACCORDING to a legend, when Syed Taj-ud-Din arrived in Khag, the Mala Kol silently followed him from Sukh Nag to Skinderpora. Syed Taj-ud-Din first arrived in Sukh Nag where he stayed for long, and later, crossing various villages, reached Skinderpora, where he spend the rest of his life. Following his death, the mantle of spiritual guidance of people fell on his son, Syed Alla-ud-Din, who was equally a pious soul. The tombs of both the father and son, are situated in Skinderpora and attract a large number of devotees."
- Skinderpora is not shown on Google maps, but a census document for the district reveals that "Iskineder Pora" is probably an alternative spelling, and that does show on Google maps[13] - but is a village 8.6 miles (13.8 km) from Chewdara. In summary, there is not enough information to know whether the article is a spoof or not, let alone the far more ambitious task of establishing notability.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 10:07, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Fails WP:SIGCOV at best. At worst, could potentially be a WP:HOAX given that many of the sources in the article don't actually mention the subject and no independent sources can be located.4meter4 (talk) 22:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
List of top international rankings by country
- List of top international rankings by country (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Much of the same concerns as the first AfD (which closed as no consensus a decade ago). This is blatant WP:NOTTRIVIA disguised as a WP:NOTSTATS violation too. The only thing even "interesting" here (besides, I assume, the WP:ITSINTERESTING votes to come) is that someone even bothered to do this, but it's clear that this could never be made into a good, encyclopedic list (which records should be included?), a fact which certainly is not helped by the WP:LISTN and the WP:V (having no reliable source which reports on this makes it even more likely that this is incomplete and incorrect) issues. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:41, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:12, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- As someone with a fair number of (largely cleanup) edits on this article, I'm fairly conflicted on this. A couple problems I've observed with the article:
- List criteria. The introduction is pretty specific about this (entries must be linked to an article or map that has the corresponding ranking of countries). However, these criteria (even though they've been in the article for many years) have not been well-observed by editors adding new entries. Also, even with these criteria being observed, it seems the list could still become unmanageably large. For example, there are a lot of international sporting competitions whose articles have a medal table by country. That narrow subfield alone could easily account for hundreds of entries.
- Maintaining accuracy. A lot of these statistics are subject to change from year to year, with the result that a lot of the rankings listed here are out of date. When someone goes to update List of countries by infant and under-five mortality rates with new data, it's never going to occur to them to seek out List of top international rankings by country to update the corresponding entry there.
- But a lot of that comes down to "it attracts bad edits" or "it's hard to maintain", which are not really reasons for deletion per se. I do think it plausibly satisfies WP:LISTPURP, in that reading the superlatives held by a given country can provide a useful lens for understanding the country's character. Colin M (talk) 16:08, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- But wouldn't that purpose better be acccomplished by having this information on the page of the relevant country/country-specific-topic-subpage (where I assume that, in most cases, it is)? Like this, it is not much different from outright being WP:INDISCRIMINATE. If the purpose truly is helping the readers (WP:RF), then, as suggested, "data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." - and this is far more easily done on specific pages about the countries (where the statistic becomes more than just some interesting trivia) then as a separate list. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- I mean, I don't think it would be appropriate to take the table at List of top international rankings by country § Denmark and plonk it down in a new section in Denmark. Possibly these facts could be integrated into the prose of that article in relevant sections, but there's something to be said for a simple list presentation of "these are the areas in which Denmark is #1". As for the data being put into context, I think the links mandated by the list criteria provide that. (But I'm sort of just playing devil's advocate here. I've thought of nominating this article for deletion myself a couple times, but I don't think the policy argument is totally obvious.) Colin M (talk) 03:24, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Going through the list, the most important ones appear to already be mentioned: for example, the high proportion of arable land is not mentioned directly as a statistic, but "Although once extensively forested, today Denmark largely consists of arable land." and "Once a predominantly agricultural country on account of its arable landscape, since 1945 Denmark has greatly expanded its industrial base and service sector."... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:39, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- I mean, I don't think it would be appropriate to take the table at List of top international rankings by country § Denmark and plonk it down in a new section in Denmark. Possibly these facts could be integrated into the prose of that article in relevant sections, but there's something to be said for a simple list presentation of "these are the areas in which Denmark is #1". As for the data being put into context, I think the links mandated by the list criteria provide that. (But I'm sort of just playing devil's advocate here. I've thought of nominating this article for deletion myself a couple times, but I don't think the policy argument is totally obvious.) Colin M (talk) 03:24, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- But wouldn't that purpose better be acccomplished by having this information on the page of the relevant country/country-specific-topic-subpage (where I assume that, in most cases, it is)? Like this, it is not much different from outright being WP:INDISCRIMINATE. If the purpose truly is helping the readers (WP:RF), then, as suggested, "data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." - and this is far more easily done on specific pages about the countries (where the statistic becomes more than just some interesting trivia) then as a separate list. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - I'm pretty sure that this would fail WP:LISTN or at least fall into the grey area of this guideline that I am not comfortable with. I think there are also issues with WP:INDISCRIMINATE and a large amount of WP:SYNTH is necessary to generate this list. The criteria for inclusion itself is WP:OR as editors have just decided what makes something notable for this list rather than referencing a sourced standard for notability. There are also massive WP:V issues with this - especially trying to keeping such a diffuse list up to date. Lastly - Argentina is the largest exporter of footballers? Really? Just from a quick Google most sources say Brazil but that's besides the point. The list is just a housing point for WP:TRIVIA. Vladimir.copic (talk) 07:48, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - This is an insane list without limits, and with no restrictions WP:INDISCRIMINATE on how many lists per country, would quite clearly blow the data limit on page sizes. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:24, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This is a massive collection of trivia with very little context. Ajf773 (talk) 10:26, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Santosh L (talk) 16:43, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to The Revised Standard Reference Guide to Indian Paper Money#Authors. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Rezwan Razack
- Rezwan Razack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Advertisement. Lack of significant coverage that are independent of the subject. Linkedin is not a reliable reference. fails WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 14:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 14:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 14:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep or Merge to The Revised Standard Reference Guide to Indian Paper Money#Authors—of which subject is the co-author—or the Prestige Group—of which the subject is a member. Subject is also founder of Museum of Indian Paper Money, which has a fair amount of coverage and may be notable on its own. Notability is not inherited through these, but the topics are fairly closely related to the subject. The subject also appears to be a researcher and expert in field of Indian banknotes. I've added some references (including one from the BBC) that seem to touch upon the subject more directly; I don't know enough about them to know if they are all reliable sources and article could use a copyedit to better incorporate them. —Ost (talk) 04:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Merge to The Revised Standard Reference Guide to Indian Paper Money#Authors. The subject lacks secondary sources to establish notability.defcon5 (talk) 05:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Merge to the book's page. I couldn't find any sources at this point that could help establish notability. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:26, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- Merge to The Revised Standard Reference Guide to Indian Paper Money#Authors. 4meter4 (talk) 21:57, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
- Merge to The Revised Standard Reference Guide to Indian Paper Money#Authors.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:50, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. My sense of the discussion is that this topic can possibly be covered reliably, but that the Himal Southasian source isn't a sufficient basis. Mackensen (talk) 00:28, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Ragusan trade with India
- Ragusan trade with India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:GNG is not met. Ample pseudohistory - see this book. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:45, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Most of us can't read your Italian link, sorry, you should instead provide some English citations from it, and explain why it's a reliable source. In general, that Ragusans travelled to India should not be pseudohistory, it's easy to find book mentions, e.g. "The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II: Volume I" by Fernand Braudel 'Ragusans in the sixteenth century travelled to ... sometimes to India, often to England, and in at least one case to Peru'. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:49, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Non-English sources are not forbidden or even, discouraged. That being said, consult footnote 329 at Lach, Donald F.; Kley, Edwin J. Van (1993). "Empire and Trade". Asia in the Making of Europe. Vol. III: A Century of Advance - Book 1: Trade, Missions, Literature. University of Chicago Press. p. 111. ISBN 9780226467535. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:05, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Of course not, but it's best to actually use them to substantiate a claim... what does this source actually say, can you explain? Did Vuk Vinaver write a book to say the whole story is a legend, or? (Either way, this seems to inherently undercut the idea that this topic is not notable... even if it's a legend, it was worthy of a book specifically about it?) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:28, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- I will provide a short summary; give me a day. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Of course not, but it's best to actually use them to substantiate a claim... what does this source actually say, can you explain? Did Vuk Vinaver write a book to say the whole story is a legend, or? (Either way, this seems to inherently undercut the idea that this topic is not notable... even if it's a legend, it was worthy of a book specifically about it?) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:28, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 16:25, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 16:25, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Keep and rename to São Braz: This would benefit from a rename to the colony itself, rather than the generic term. A number of sources describe the colony in detail ([14] [15] [16] [17] (I can't access the latter source, but the google preview shows it talks about it. [18])). The colony itself would pass WP:GEOLAND. Also @nominator, what are you referring to with the book you linked? Curbon7 (talk) 16:40, 12 September 2021 (UTC)Comment: I just read the ANI related to this page. Striking my comments, I want no part in this. Curbon7 (talk) 21:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think such a title would be better compared to the current WP:NDESC title, especially when we literally have the article currently quoting a historian saying there's no conclusive proof of a colony there. We know the church was named after St. Blaise, but not much about the trading post / potential colony per se. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- BTW that journal article is from 1963, while the source I mention, that is in the article, is from 2018. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:05, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, Croatia Week (and TOI, declared to be of dubious reliability at WP:RSP) are definitely reliable sources to document economic history in a controversial domain. Himal Southasian is a decent magazine (employs academics as editors) but have you read it? This article can be redirected to Gandaulim at best. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Potential keep -- I see nothing incredible in the content. Of course I do not have the book and my Italian is minimal. The article needs a lot more citations, but the test is verifiable, not verified. I do not think it is implying a colony in terms of foreign settlers in India, more likely a community of merchants cooperating together. This is how overseas trade often worked. Accordingly I doubt this is pseudo-history. Even if it was, the fact that a view has been put forward and later debunked may be sufficient to justify a WP article. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Deserves nothing more than a paragraph at Gandaulim. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Colonization of India is not an area that is yet to receive due attention from scholars: on a topic, which has a few hundred books and a few thousand journal articles, why are there hardly any sources documenting this part. subject? I think that is the answer to this AfD. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Sure, it was a relatively minor event, but then you're not actually arguing for deletion, merely for merging into a more relevant article, hence using the AfD process is largely pointless. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- In light of this section, what is left to do is a redirect. TrangaBellam (talk) 23:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- I'm actually not sure if this is better - this now seems like the modern-day village article is being WP:COATRACK'ed with a bunch of information about a historical story that may well have a different context (this reminds me of having to clean up talking about Roman times in Zagreb instead of in Andautonia). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- In light of this section, what is left to do is a redirect. TrangaBellam (talk) 23:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Sure, it was a relatively minor event, but then you're not actually arguing for deletion, merely for merging into a more relevant article, hence using the AfD process is largely pointless. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. I'm not seeing a strong policy based argument for deletion; and as others have pointed out sources do exist which verify the content. I think there are enough sources to pass GNG based on those in the article and those presented above by Curbon7. Currently, discussion is centering around the need for this topic to exist as a stand alone article or whether it should be merged somewhere else. AFD isn't really the right venue for determining a merge where an article's deletion is not necessary. As such, I suggest closing this AFD as keep and discussing merge options on the article's talk page before making a formal merge proposal at the proper venue.4meter4 (talk) 22:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- 4meter4, so you find TOI and CroatiaWeek to be reliable sources for these areas? The Himal Mag's is a photo-essay. If the topic passes GNG, why can't you produce a single scholar who devotes more than paragraph to the topic? To reiterate,
Colonization of India is not an area that is yet to receive due attention from scholars: on a topic, which has a few thousand books and tens of thousands of journal articles, why are there hardly any sources documenting this part. subject?
TrangaBellam (talk) 22:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- 4meter4, so you find TOI and CroatiaWeek to be reliable sources for these areas? The Himal Mag's is a photo-essay. If the topic passes GNG, why can't you produce a single scholar who devotes more than paragraph to the topic? To reiterate,
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:26, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Given the disputed factual accuracy of this, I would be loathe to close as no consensus, unless there truly is no alternative. Is there any appropriately suitable redirect target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:14, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete This does appear to be pseudohistory, and if it is based on a vague historical accuracy, that does not come through in the article text. The current article appears to by WP:COATRACKing on the idea of trade between Ragusa and India, which may be notable, with a complete focus on trying to claim there was a Ragusan colony. Whatever the reliability of the Himal/Tomas source, it is being misrepresented in this article, which paints as close to a certainty what the Himal/Tomas source treats as a curious historical myth of unsure accuracy. The second source seems to similarly treat it as hearsay. There might possibly be GNG for the actual topic of Ragusan trade with India (which this article doesn't really look into), or for the myth of the colony, but at the moment this is neither of these. CMD (talk) 04:58, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- Chipmunkdavis, I agree with you. I have covered the episode at this section. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:02, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose deletion without commenting on redirecting or merging. A Ragusan trading colony at Goa is mentioned in Peter Frankopan's Silk Roads and Brill's Handbook of Hinduism in Europe. If this is "pseudohistory", it is the kind that had gone mainstream in top-shelf sources. Given that the nom has created a competing section on the topic in a different article, this is a content dispute and deletion does not seem appropriate. Srnec (talk) 23:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- And these sources treat it as a 48km separate territory with a capital and official status that was carved out of Portuguese Goa and then returned to it? The issue here is not the concept (albeit a different concept to the article title), it is the article. Deletion is an appropriate and suggested option for a WP:POVFORK. CMD (talk) 01:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- SIGCOV need to be exhibited. Frankopan spends less than half of a line. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:41, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep The nomination makes no sense. WP:GNG is easily established with following sources:
- The Slavonic Year-book: American series, Volu\mes 1-2. The Slavonic Year-Book. 1963. pp. 177–182.
Ragusan trade was the Turkish expedition to India 1537–1538 . This expedition was a Ragusan affair in the same sense...
- Manlio Cortelazzo (1971). Mediterraneo e Oceano Indiano : Atti del sesto Colloquio internazionale di storia marittima, tenuto a Venezia dal 20 al 29 settembre 1962. LS Olschki. p. 189.
- The Slavonic Year-book: American series, Volu\mes 1-2. The Slavonic Year-Book. 1963. pp. 177–182.
- Theres more than just these.TheRollBoss001 (talk) 03:59, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- Your first citation is incorrect. Recheck details and don't use Google metadata blindly. You are citing this article from about 80 years ago - I have already used it in my section alongside recent sources, all of which paint a contrasting picture. What's new?
- The mention in the last source is by the same author (Vuk Vinaver), I quote in support of pseudo-history. The title goes Mercanti E Bastimenti Di Ragusa in India: Una Leggenda. It is obvious that you have not even read the source, you are quoting.
- Go to a real library, borrow books, and read them; google Snippets are usually worthless. If you can write anything more than what stands at this section, take the lead. I wish to see how that ends up. TrangaBellam (talk) 04:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- @TrangaBellam: stop being disruptive and stop changing my comment like you are doing in violation of WP:REFACTOR. Your comment came 2 minutes after my edit so better fix your own comment. The last source is accessible and the chapter is "Mercanti e bastimenti di Ragusa in India". You can also ask someone else for source access. TheRollBoss001 (talk) 04:40, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- I insisted that your citation to Hicks stayed because it shew how you are engaging in an AfD without reading a single source and based on the hits GSnippet throws up.
- I have never claimed the last source to be inaccessible. I have already quoted the chapter-name, author, and how it supports my point (than your's) - why are you quoting it back at me but excluding a sig. part (Una Leggenda)? TrangaBellam (talk) 04:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- @TrangaBellam: stop being disruptive and stop changing my comment like you are doing in violation of WP:REFACTOR. Your comment came 2 minutes after my edit so better fix your own comment. The last source is accessible and the chapter is "Mercanti e bastimenti di Ragusa in India". You can also ask someone else for source access. TheRollBoss001 (talk) 04:40, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect to Gandaulim (Ilhas). This article is an inferior WP:CONTENTFORK of that article -- they deal with the same topic but the other article verifiably qualifies the same claims as unproven. Himal coverage doesn't make the claims verifiable. The other reference reads as follows:
neki su istraživači pretpostavili postojanje dubrovačke kolonije São Braz u blizini Goe, ali za potvrdu te tvrdnje za sad nema dovoljno dokaza
-- translation: some researchers hypothesized on there being a Ragusan colony São Braz in the vicinity of Goa, but there is not yet enough evidence to verify this claim. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:13, 14 October 2021 (UTC) - Delete or Redirect. The article at present is a plain WP:COATRACK and WP:POVFORK with significant misrepresentation, while the topic or at least an appropriate overview of it is already covered in Gandaulim (Ilhas). Tayi Arajakate Talk 23:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep This is perfectly valid, notable, sourced and interesting. It just needs expanding. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- Validity and interestingness aren't criterion for keeping an article. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- No, but notability and sourcing are. Validity and interest nevertheless do reinforce notability. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- Validity and interestingness aren't criterion for keeping an article. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete or redirect per WP:COATRACK and WP:POVFORK. The article is largely sourced to a single source, the Himal one, which appears to be a travelogue of sorts rather than a history. The only other source is supporting the non-existence of evidence of a colony so it's not exactly comforting. Of the sources brought up in this discussion, the Mare Magnum source calls it a "legend". The slavonic studies article is from the 1940s, the statement about the colony is a throwaway one with no evidence cited. Nothing more can be said about the topic that is not already said in Gandaulim (Ilhas) (which is already saying more than is legitimate). --RegentsPark (comment) 20:25, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
The Exchange TRX
- The Exchange TRX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't pass WP:CORP, No sign of notability. signed, Iflaq (talk) 13:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:54, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. This article is about a future shopping mall (as in the building), not the larger corporation (Tun Razak Exchange) which owns and operates it (they own many properties) so WP:NCORP is not the relevant guideline. It is a future building project which may or may not ever get built. As such, fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NBUILDING. Even after it gets built it would likely not pass NBUILDING. 4meter4 (talk) 21:50, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:03, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. This does not meet WP:NBUILDING and certainly is not in line with WP:CRYSTAL. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:18, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - As per nom. Gentleman wiki (talk)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:09, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Jack "Russer" Russell
- Jack "Russer" Russell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article appears to have been created as a joke/hoax in 2005. I can find no mention of this person's existence outside wikipedia. El Pharao (talk) 13:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Delete. A few Google searches pull up no results for him. If he was who he is stated to be, there would surely be at least one result. I checked the contributions of the original author, and they had only made two contributions. One was the creation of this article, and the other was vandalism to the PlayStation 2 page. [19] If no sources can be found on him, no citations can be added, and the page cannot be verified. The Council of Seraphim | speak before the Council 13:50, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Strong delete - Complete lack of verifiability, likely madeup. --MuZemike 16:22, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. After 16 years, this article has still never had any sources provided, and I can't find any myself. When this article is deleted, it may qualify to be the second-longest running hoax article known to Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:38, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete and send to the hoax list. wizzito | say hello! 03:05, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Framo V 500
- Framo V 500 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article is fake and solely based upon original research. Christian Suhr: DDR-Lastwagen: 1945-1990, p. 57, and Peter Kirchberg: Plaste, Blech und Planwirtschaft: die Geschichte des Automobilbaus in der DDR, p. 97 both describe a "Framo V 500" (sadly not in sufficient detail for a Wikipedia article), but it has nothing to do with what this article suggests. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 13:13, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 13:13, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, speedy under G3 if possible. I trust Johannes' assessment of his sources; the article cites nothing. --Sable232 (talk) 00:33, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete under G5. Creator is a sock. dudhhrContribs 16:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 13:02, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Michael Tortorich
- Michael Tortorich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication that the subject is notable. PepperBeast (talk) 01:03, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:15, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:17, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. He won several awards, but I don't think they are enough to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:37, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:03, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Howie Beno
- Howie Beno (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable. Readable sources in the article and noted in the talk page can't establish notability. I wasn't able to consult the Jives Magazine article, but based on the lines it sources, Beno could have only been mentioned in passing in that text. Best I could find online was this interview: [20]. Mottezen (talk) 02:41, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 02:41, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 02:41, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 02:41, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 02:41, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 02:41, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Weak delete I think he at least comes very close to meeting NMUSIC based on his work with a variety of popular artists and his time in Ministry, but like nom I just couldn't find enough sources to establish notability. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:15, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Previous nominated via WP:PROD (albeit poorly done), ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Delete Didn't find any reliable sources which make him notable for Wikipedia. Mehmood.Husain (talk) 22:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Meeting at the Tower
- Meeting at the Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet WP:NFILM criteria. ––FormalDude talk 02:22, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude talk 02:22, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude talk 02:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Deletion. Why? The film is on imdb and elCinema — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masry684 (talk • contribs) 10:36, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:10, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
@Masry684: None of those establish notability, as they are databases. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello. Two Citations are From Google books. Thanks
- Comment@Masry684: in a film article it’s important to have a “reception” section outlining what critics said about the film. You’ve added lots of references and I haven’t looked at them all, but are there any critical reviews of the film that discuss it in depth? If the refs just mention that this film exists, then it probably isn’t notable. Mccapra (talk) 05:29, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Okay thanks I didn’t know that we need critical articles for notability. But if the critical articles are negative will the film still be notable? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masry684 (talk • contribs) 07:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Masry684: Yes, even if reviews are negative they'll still count towards WP:NFILM and WP:GNG Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:28, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —ScottyWong— 17:21, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete None of the references seem to be significantly about this film. One of the JSTOR sources, for example, is a book review in Black Camera of a book that does not mention the film. The original author is advised to read the general and film notability guidelines more closely. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:30, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails GNG and NFILM per Eggishorn.4meter4 (talk) 22:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:07, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:34, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Karley Scott Collins
- Karley Scott Collins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject, a retired child actor, fails both WP:NACTOR and WP:BASIC – e.g. only one or two passing mentions in Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, or Entertainment Weekly. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.
- Delete Doesn't pass WP:NACTOR and there does not appear to be enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NACTOR.4meter4 (talk) 22:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. —ScottyWong— 17:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
A Husband on Holiday (film)
- A Husband on Holiday (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not pass WP:NFILM. ––FormalDude talk 02:24, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude talk 02:24, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude talk 02:35, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Previously created as A Husband on Holiday and deleted via WP:PROD, so not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 03:23, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Kindly note that books citation has been added to the page. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masry684 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment are there any critical reviews of the film that discuss it in depth? If the refs just mention that this film exists, then it probably isn’t notable. Mccapra (talk) 05:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Fails WP:NFILM even with added sources. No in depth coverage to be found. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:33, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Wicked Game (film)
- Wicked Game (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not pass WP:NFILM. ––FormalDude talk 02:24, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude talk 02:24, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude talk 02:35, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Previously created as Game of the Wicked (1989 Egyptian film) and deleted via WP:PROD, so not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 03:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Kindly note that books citation has been added. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masry684 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:08, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment are there any critical reviews of the film that discuss it in depth? Mccapra (talk) 05:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Phillip Miller
- Phillip Miller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:MMANOT criteria for only having 2 fights in top tier promotions. While retiring undefeated is a rare sight, subject doesn't have an extraordinary coverage by sources, failing WP:GNG. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 03:32, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:09, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:09, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:09, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:09, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:08, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Weak Delete Strictly speaking, he doesn't meet WP:NMMA. It seems he left the UFC in a money dispute in 2002, before the UFC became such a big money operation. My search found a good number of ghits, but less than I'd hoped in the significant independent coverage category. I found him mentioned in routine sports reporting, various MMA forums/chatrooms, and even an interview where he said he quit because while he was badly beating a fighter in some small promotion, he realized that one day that it would be him on the receiving end--especially because he could never see himself quitting after a loss. I'd like to ignore all rules and vote to keep the article, but I can't get past him not meeting WP:GNG or some SNG. I'll admit I'm open to a good argument as to why this article should be kept. Right now all I've got is WP:ILIKEIT. Papaursa (talk) 21:02, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and Papaursa.4meter4 (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Lachlan Kavney
- Lachlan Kavney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMOTORSPORT. WP:BEFORE revealed zero significant coverage, being mostly database entries or trivial coverage CiphriusKane (talk) 05:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. CiphriusKane (talk) 05:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CiphriusKane (talk) 05:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:52, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment. His personal website is down. He may have stopped racing. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:53, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Not sure if he passes WP:NMOTORSPORT (he might scrape by having ridden in Moto3) but definitely fails WP:GNG. pinktoebeans (talk) 16:10, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 00:20, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per others. His own instagram account describes himself as a "washed-up never-was international motorcycle racer" (not linked for his privacy, search it yourself if you must). Fails GNG. A7V2 (talk) 09:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:40, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Hisae Watanabe
- Hisae Watanabe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:MMANOT for having no fights in top tier promotions. Starring in a small Japanese movie isn't enough to pass WP:GNG. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 04:03, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:19, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:19, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:20, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. The movie is enough to pass WP:GNG, and there are a lot of good references, and even more can be found in the corresponding Japanese and Thai articles. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:21, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Being in a movie isn't enough to show WP notability, especially when you're well down the list of cast members. She fails to meet WP:NACTOR and lacks the top tier fights to meet WP:NMMA. She also fails to meet WP:GNG since the coverage of her can overwhelmingly be considered routine sports reporting. Papaursa (talk) 01:08, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete She meets neither WP:MMABIO nor WP:NACTOR. Htanaungg (talk) 09:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NACTOR.4meter4 (talk) 00:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. —ScottyWong— 17:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Baltimore Career Academy
- Baltimore Career Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication of notability. All references are to the school or larger school system's website. WP:BEFORE search fails to turn up significant coverage of the school itself. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:48, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:48, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:51, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:11, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I am leaning towards keep because Newspapers.com yields a lot of results. However, it can be difficult to find a regional source because the name is so generic. Per WP:AUD, public schools need only one regional or national reference. The references added make it clear that local coverage indeed exists. Scorpions13256 (talk) 21:33, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep When considering WP:AUD the Baltimore Sun sources are enough to meet WP:GNG as a regional newspaper. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per Qwaiiplayer.4meter4 (talk) 15:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. North America1000 08:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
The Good The Bad
- The Good The Bad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not appear to meet notability requirements of WP:MUSIC RF23 (talk) 05:29, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Satisfies notability guidelines with coverage including [21], [22], [23], [24]. --Michig (talk) 10:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per Michig. TipsyElephant (talk) 11:28, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Passes WP:NBAND per sources provided by Michig.4meter4 (talk) 01:18, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Silq
- Silq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
New quantum programming language that likely fails WP:GNG. Based entirely on primary and PR-like sources. WP:BEFORE mostly shows the same, plus unrelated topics with the same name. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Weak delete maybe per WP:TOOSOON? Per nom, I mostly only see promotional sources online. I'm not well-familiar with the tech world, but the only coverage I see is this article from TechCrunch (which wins a yellow "no consensus" flag at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources) and very weirdly, this Silq-focused textbook from authors who weren't the original paper's authors. Not sure what to make of the textbook, but generally it doesn't look like Silq is the subject of substantial independent coverage. It was only published recently, so perhaps someday... Ajpolino (talk) 21:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Noting the author's comment on the talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Please refer to this before deleting Silq, -> Silq is a new high-level programming language for quantum computers. This is a good article, as it is a page for freely released programming language. Trinity112233 (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Relisting to evaluate sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:06, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- No additional citation is needed to verify through multiple sources for the article Silq. The article was already verified with strong references and it did not infringe the Wiki policy. Trinity112233 (talk) 20:12, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete None of the citations, including the article mentioned by Trinity112233 establish significant coverage in secondary sources. Citing the conference talk where the language was introduced does not pass WP:NOTABILITY. PianoDan (talk) 17:41, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and PianoDan.4meter4 (talk) 23:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Editors can go ahead with a merger if they are confident of the sources, or else renominate the article for deletion. Sandstein 11:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Pistol model 2000
- Pistol model 2000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable, searching the name just brings up Wikipedia mirrors, I'm unable to even find a passing mention by any secondary sources. Loafiewa (talk) 07:54, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Loafiewa (talk) 07:54, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment. The article could be merged into IWI Jericho 941, but that would confuse people looking for the Romanian gun. I found some references and added them, but they may not be good enough. Perhaps someone more familiar with military sidearms and the media that cover them than I am could find some better references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:03, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- I could see the case for merging, but I'm unable to find a source that verifies the article's claim that the Model 2000 is a copy of the Jericho (aside from a self-published Wordpress site). Loafiewa (talk) 22:20, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- According to this news story, Cugir Arms Factory obtained the patent for producing a copy of the Jericho pistol in 1995 (which is ro:Pistol Md. 1995). The ro:Pistol Md. 2000 is a newer version made at the end of the 2000's. In 2021 another version named LP 5 was produced, which corresponds to NATO standards. Razvan Socol (talk) 18:05, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:07, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. ✗plicit 12:59, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
BELTUR
- BELTUR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Holding company does not meet WP:NCORP- lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nominator, thanks to sources found by Styyx. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Once someone adds the Turkish-language references shown here, notability will be clear. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:09, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep based on references found by Styyx.
Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria (even in Turkish and looking at a couple of the results pointed to by Eastmain above). Topic fails WP:NCORP.HighKing++ 20:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC) - Comment. It may be notable, I do see lot's of citations in Google news, but not sure if anything is significant. I added one new citation. Webmaster862 (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep While it isn't correct to just paste Google hits, I've found some sources there that are significant. Source about re-opening after Covid, Source about alleged tax evasion, New board of directors "controversy", 48 locations in 36 hospitals closed, A later source with updated numbers, Source about super-high prices (though a bit short). Together with the Sözcü source already in the article (rest are primary), I think this company passes NCORP. There are a few more sources, but these aren't significant and/or reliable. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 16:47, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: article expanded with the sources I mention above. HighKing: any interest in looking again? ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 18:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Styyx, thanks for taking the time to dig up more references. There are two sections of WP:NCORP which I use to see whether a reference meets the criteria for establishing notability. The first is WP:ORGIND and especially the definition of "Independent Content" which says a reference must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The second is WP:CORPDEPTH which requires in-depth information on the topic organization. The NTV reference appears to rely on a statement made by the company, the additional information in the article is generic COVID19 reopening information and does not meet CORPDEPTH. This first Sabah reference comments on an investigation into one of the company practices, it does not provide in-depth information on the company though. But the second Sabah reference doesn't provide the source for the information revealed in the article (maybe the translation is poor) but otherwise I would say it meets the criteria in my opinion. In a similar vein, this Cumhuriyet reference appears to meet the criteria as it does not rely on information provided by the company and contains enough in-depth information. The T24 reference relies on a statement from the company, fails ORGIND. The Aksam piece is social media gossip, not really worth considering. Since there are two references which in my opinion meet the criteria, I'll change my !vote and thank you again for doing the leg work on this. HighKing++ 20:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Vincent DeLeon
- Vincent DeLeon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable audio engineer and songwriter Mottezen (talk) 06:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 06:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 06:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 06:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 06:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:12, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.
- Logs:
2019-08 move to → Draft:Vincent DeLeon
- --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Bev Vincent
- Bev Vincent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Probably not a notable author. He’s notable enough to be referenced by a handful of scholarly papers (i.e. “see B. Vincent” etc.) but going by the golden rule of “must be covered by reliable 3rd party sources” I got nothing. Dronebogus (talk) 07:56, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 07:56, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep https://www.bevvincent.com/praise/ Not sure if any of those awards are notable or not. https://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-451-21304-4 praises Vincent's work. His books get reviews also. Dream Focus 04:10, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:13, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:56, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Tribe (band). (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:08, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Janet LaValley
- Janet LaValley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Possible WP:ATD would be merge/redirect to Tribe (band), though I'm not convinced they are notable either. She doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG independent of the band though. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; now hopefully we can get a decision. Boleyn (talk) 08:12, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:09, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:09, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:09, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:13, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect to Tribe (band) - subject has not established notability separate to the band. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:28, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:56, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect to Tribe (band).4meter4 (talk) 00:24, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 12:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Pablo de León
- Pablo de León (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Successful, but doesn't have the significance or coverage to meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years. I couldn't establish notability from the other language WP articles or Google search. Boleyn (talk) 09:04, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 15:15, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 15:18, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 15:18, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete The subject may be notable but no significant coverage is cited. Multi7001 (talk) 18:33, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:15, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Percy the Park Keeper
- Percy the Park Keeper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
It existed and had some notable voice actors, but I couldn't find the level of coverage or significance required to make it notable. Boleyn (talk) 08:40, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: Maybe the book series should be combined with the TV series since the latter is based on the former. There is plenty of material for the books. Best to use CBBC or the Hit Entertainment official website for the TV series. Deltasim (talk) 12:26, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:15, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. czar 04:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Jolly Villota
- Jolly Villota (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NOLYMPICS and WP:GNG. Subject failed to medal in a singular Paralympic appearance. JTtheOG (talk) 09:22, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. JTtheOG (talk) 09:22, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. JTtheOG (talk) 09:22, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. JTtheOG (talk) 09:22, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy keep: This athlete passed the WP:BIO. AnsrieJames9 (talk) 01:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:NOLYMPICS per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 12:16, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Fails GNG and, technically, also fails WP:NOLYMPICS as no medal. No Great Shaker (talk) 04:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Similar to my !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Boldo, notability is demonstrated, not inherited. This article fails both WP:NOLYMPICS and WP:GNG. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:17, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, an also-ran at an athletic level that doesn't get much coverage. Geschichte (talk) 11:42, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 13:22, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
2021–22 Grand Prix of Figure Skating Final
- 2021–22 Grand Prix of Figure Skating Final (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Recreation of deleted page; this exactly matches the deleted page with the exception of undefined references which links to pages that contain nothing more than "NO DATA AVAILABLE". Speedy deletion {{Db-g4}} tag was removed by Materialscientist. No effort made to provide any references to this future event, so WP:CRYSTAL still applies. Mikeblas (talk) 10:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:53, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:57, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: Per nom. — Qwerfjkltalk 15:16, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: or redirect. Notable sporting event scheduled to be held. Can be deleted if not held, but all signs point to it being held. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete and Salt until closer to the event per WP:CRYSTAL.4meter4 (talk) 01:22, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - The event is only a few months away, it's common to have an article created in advance of the event actually happening. There seems to be plenty of evidence that the event is actually going to occur. Per WP:BEFORE, I found an article published a week ago that mentions the upcoming event. The original article was deleted back in February, which is admittedly a bit too early for an article on an event in December. But we're a lot closer now. —ScottyWong— 20:23, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep, and definitely do not salt. Salting is a ridiculous action for a page that is likely to be needed very soon. The page is no longer an exact duplicate of the deleted article, so the nomination is now out of date and invalid. It contains sourced information on the impact of Covid on the event. If nothing else, it will become an article on the event cancellation – this is an important event in the ice skating calendar, it will be a big story either way, cancelled or going ahead. The criticism that some of the refs return "No information available" is entirely to be expected. Those are the refs for the official results, so until there are some actual results that is going to remain the case. SpinningSpark 12:11, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:11, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per CRYSTAL: "should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." Also note that the 2020–21 Grand Prix of Figure Skating Final was cancelled, but has an article anyway. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
- Ah, I see that last year's final has been put up for Afd too. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep The event is only a few months away, deleting this article only to recreate it later on creates extra work and isn't beneficial to our readers. NemesisAT (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Per above – the page is going to be re-created with the same content again if it gets deleted now. All signs currently point to the event being held as scheduled, so meets WP:CRYSTAL. Sunnyou31 (talk) 22:25, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. It's not the actual competition; it should be a section of the main article when and only when it takes place. Double Plus Ungood (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- Draftify: per WP:CRYSTAL. ––FormalDude talk 04:00, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Consensus that article passes WP:SIGCOV based on Chinese languages sources discussed during the course of the AfD. (non-admin closure) Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Fan Rong
- Fan Rong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:MMANOT for having no fights in top tier promotions. Also fails WP:GNG as coverage for fights are routine report. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 11:03, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: I see some profiles and other coverage in Chinese-language sources: [25] [26] [27] [28]. A more thorough search would probably find more. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:00, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- Mx. Granger I'm sorry, but my computer security settings block the first and third of your references. Of the other two, one is promoting an upcoming OneFC fight card in Shanghai in 2019 and the other is highlighting the best Chinese fighter performances in the 2019 OneFC events in Beijing and Shanghai. Do you have some better examples of significant coverage? That's important because he clearly doesn't meet WP:NMMA. Thanks. Papaursa (talk) 20:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:53, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
DeleteHe has no top tier fights to meet WP:NMMA. My search did not find anything to show me that there is enough significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. Fightmatrix says his highest ranking ever was 140th, which is not close to showing WP notability. Papaursa (talk) 01:16, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
- 黄业 (2019-06-03). ""金刚战警"樊荣:争取展现中国大级别拳手的实力" ["King Kong Warriors" Fan Rong: Strive to show the strength of China's major fighters]. 北京千龙新闻网络传播有限责任公司 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-09-06. Retrieved 2021-09-19.
From Google Translate: "Fan Rong has a strong physique, not only has huge muscles, but also has clear lines, and his beautiful abdominal muscles are not lost to small-level fighters. He has practiced javelin, discus and shot put since he was a child and is an excellent track and field athlete. After being admitted to the Sports Training Department of Harbin Institute of Physical Education in 2009, he began to understand and get in touch with mixed martial arts. ... In the arena, he played a good record of 11 wins and 2 losses. It is worth mentioning that Fan Rong also represented the Chinese national team in the MMA Asian Championships. With two surrenders and one TKO, he defeated three powerful enemies and won the 93 kg gold medal."
- "樊荣:中国大级别选手之光 期待ONE上海站迎来爆发" [Fan Rong: The glory of China's major players, looking forward to the outbreak of ONE Shanghai Station] (in Chinese). Sina Corporation. 2019-05-24. Archived from the original on 2021-09-19. Retrieved 2021-09-19.
From Google Translate: "Fan Rong, previously a special police officer, officially entered the professional mixed martial arts competition in early 2016. In just over two years, he has won ten consecutive victories in domestic competitions, including four surrenders and five KO end victories. ... At the beginning of 2019, Fan Rong continued to pursue his dream of mixed martial arts, successfully completed the signing of the ONE Championship, and successfully entered the international arena. ... In his debut at Manila this year, Fan Rong challenged Reinier De Ridder, a Dutch athlete who is 193 cm tall. In the first round of the competition, the Dutch used perfect Jiu-Jitsu skills to create unprecedented pressure on Fan Rong. While ending Fan Rong's ten-game winning streak, he improved his record to 10 wins and 0 losses."
- 格斗迷 (2020-11-12). "明晚ONE新加坡开打,我国大级别选手"战警"樊荣出战" [Tomorrow night ONE Singapore kicks off, my country's major player "War Police" Fan Rong will play] (in Chinese). Sina Corporation. Archived from the original on 2021-09-19. Retrieved 2021-09-19.
From Google Translate: "At present, the best middleweight player in my country's mixed martial arts should be the "war police" Fan Rong. He is 185 cm tall and weighs about 85 kg. He has a current record of 11 wins and 2 losses. He has a very good body and is also very good at surrendering opponents. There are not many domestic athletes who can compare with him, so in the future, Fan Rong will mainly challenge Russian and European and American players. It is conceivable that the difficulty is very large. Fan Rong’s opponent this time is Brazilian Yuri Simmons, who currently has no mixed martial arts record and has won the championship of innocent jiu-jitsu."
- 黄业 (2019-06-03). ""金刚战警"樊荣:争取展现中国大级别拳手的实力" ["King Kong Warriors" Fan Rong: Strive to show the strength of China's major fighters]. 北京千龙新闻网络传播有限责任公司 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-09-06. Retrieved 2021-09-19.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Third relist to allow time for additional input regarding sources presented in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Definitely meets WP:GNG, thanks to work by Cunard. VocalIndia (talk) 03:42, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep thanks to the sources supplied by Cunard. The second two especially appear to focus on Fan Rong and are WP:SIGCOV. NemesisAT (talk) 18:54, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. North America1000 12:08, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
John Murphy (branding consultant)
- John Murphy (branding consultant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article currently fails WP:BASIC and WP:GNG due to a lack of secondary sources. Iskandar 323 (talk) Iskandar 323 (talk) 11:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Iskandar 323 (talk) 11:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment The author has since retrieved live versions of some of the broken links that had resulted in a lack of citation. These may or may not be considered enough to establish WP:BASIC and WP:GNG and the general merit of the article likely still needs discussing. Iskandar 323 (talk) 09:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Weighing the restoration of this article's links and the supporting bibliography, I retract my proposed deletion. Iskandar 323 (talk) 12:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:52, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete – oppose retraction - This is a PROMO article that relies mostly on interviews (which are not independent sources) and a piece by The Marketing Society, an organization that looks like a trade association to promote marketers, meaning it is also likely not independent. My BEFORE is returning mostly churnalism. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment It is possible that many of the sources would be better directed towards an article on the company Interbrand, which does seems to have had a demonstrable and notable impact on the history of the business discipline of brand marketing. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- Query Are there aspects of the article that are important for notability and rely on churnalism? Perhaps they can be addressed. Frans Fowler (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment – Since the article was nominated for deletion, I have restored the references to secondary sources, which are all reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of Murphy. (For instance, one of those sources is an interview with him broadcast by BBC Radio 4. Quite apart from the interest of its content, it shows that the BBC considers Murphy notable enough to transmit a serious programme that focuses on him.) I have also added references to two other sources that demonstrate his notability and the significance of his work. I would suggest (as does the nominator, above) that the question of notability can be resolved in favour of keeping the article.
- The nominator and I have both made some changes to the layout and style of the article since it was proposed for deletion. The general merit of the article can be discussed on the article's Talk page, as can any aspect that might be perceived as promotional.
- Indy beetle remarks (above) that The Marketing Society (one of the sources to which the article refers) "looks like a trade association to promote marketers, meaning it is also likely not independent". As far as I can see from some Web research, it doesn't promote marketers; rather, it appears to promote professional development and the exchange of best-practice expertise among marketing practitioners and teams. In particular, the piece the article refers to is an objective (sometimes critical) assessment of the past, present, and future of brand valuation, at the time it was written.
- The secondary source references that I have restored had recently been removed when the article was nominated for deletion, because they were broken. There is a how-to guide on link rot that suggests why it might be better to tag, and keep, dead links.
- Declaration of (dis)interest: I started the John Murphy article. I have never had any social, commercial, or other contact or relationship whatsoever with Murphy or any organisation or business he is involved in. I came to the subject in the course of translating a company's annual report, for which I needed to research Interbrand. Conscientious translators often do research, and Wikipedia articles such as this are an invaluable resource. Frans Fowler (talk) 07:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- It was certainly not helpful for the Interband article to be deleted earlier this year. That was a bad call. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:22, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Frans Fowler makes a compelling case, and the nominator has withdrawn their nomination. Appears to pass WP:BASIC.4meter4 (talk) 18:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Porkkalam. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Bandi Saroj Kumar
- Bandi Saroj Kumar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable Indian filmmaker. Fails WP:FILMMAKER. John B123 (talk) 12:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 12:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 12:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect to Porkkalam, their only notable work. Can't find any thing beyond that film. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:52, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:31, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:50, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Peter Ormond 💬 00:17, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 09:57, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Aanchal Goswami
- Aanchal Goswami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable Indian actress, fails WP:NACTOR. John B123 (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Eevee01(talk) 09:12, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: no significant work yet; hence fails WP:NACTOR defcon5 (talk) 11:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: No indication of meeting NACTOR or GNG. -- Ab207 (talk) 17:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Rina Kay
- Rina Kay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails notability for musicians. Creator seems to be the subject itself. Already rejected in draft too [29] NagalimNE (talk) 10:41, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NagalimNE (talk) 10:41, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete No indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO. DMySon (talk) 14:13, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - I submitted this for WP:A7 deletion as I felt that there was no assertion of notability but this was declined by an IP without comment. In any case, there are no reliable sources in the article and a source search came back empty handed so this is a clear and obvious delete. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:17, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - It contains reliable sources and the page should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.205.88.123 (talk) 07:31, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
I wrote some reliable sources but someone deleted them. I couldn't change anything in the article because then I would get banned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CallMeRina (talk • contribs) 18:18, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:35, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete No indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO.No reference at all.Non notable singer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.218.161.164 (talk) 03:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. The concensus is that this meets the notability criteria. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 14:32, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Dillinger And Capone
- Dillinger And Capone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This would appear to me to fail the WP:NFILM test and most probably any other policies and guideline for film and television related content. It would appear that this was a just "direct-to-video" film. I can see that the article Jon Purdy has never been created. As always, more than happy to be proven wrong. Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 10:40, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Entertainment Weekly review cited in article. Another one at TV Guide [30]. Being "direct to video" does not automatically deem something non-noteworthy and should never be used as a deletion argument. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Nominator comment: I added the Entertainment Weekly reference. I'm just about to add a Rotten Tomatoes mention and look at your suggested reference. As always, more than happy to be proven wrong. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:05, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: Not !voting; just merely wanted to state that this is like the 6th version of this article created (into mainspace) by the primary editor over just the past 2 days. There are a number of versions floating in draftspace under various names (just check the user's talk page for the links), so those should be checked if they have any valuable content this one left out. Curbon7 (talk) 16:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Curbon7: I believe that the creator copied the article content from the primary draft, Draft:Dillinger and Capone, see diff between draft and initial revision of this article. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 17:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shirt58 (talk) 12:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep looks notable, good references. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:07, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. The film was screened at multiple notable film festivals, including the Cannes Film Festival and MystFest in 1995. It then was acquired by Cinemax in 1996, and then HBO in 1997. I added refs to the article for those, and a review by critic Leonard Maltin. As such, it was not "direct to video" and with multiple independent reviews passes GNG and NFILM. My guest is a less then stellar reception at the film festivals led to the decision to shop the movie to cable tv instead of doing a release in theatres. 4meter4 (talk) 22:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Agua Formosa Trail
- Agua Formosa Trail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No significant coverage. Non-notable. SL93 (talk) 10:02, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete No assertion of notability. Probably could have been prodded. Reywas92Talk 19:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Yes there is a page about the trail, but it looks like one of the ten or so trails part of Terras de Xisto a association for the promotion of tourism on a group os small villages in the centre of Portugal. The association could (should...) have an article, as does the village Água Formosa , and the trails be listed there, but not each trail. There are many many of those, it it is probably a job for Wikiloc or such, not for WP to list those. Is WikiTravel on? If kept move to Água Formosa trail ("Á", not "A", "trail", not "Trail") - Nabla (talk) 18:45, 13 September 2021 (UTC) (I just might go there in some near future vacation, I want to go there for a while...)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 00:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Crystal Paras
- Crystal Paras (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 01:35, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 01:35, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 01:35, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 01:35, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Strong keep: This actress passes the WP:BIO. AnsrieJames9 (talk) 11:12, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Subject fails GNG, NACTOR, and ANYBIO. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:36, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:56, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Administrator note: AnsrieJames9 has been forum shopping. They asked me to close this discussion as keep on my talk page and contacted Superastig to close the discussion as well. The user has been warned. ✗plicit 14:28, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete – the sources in the article are trivial mentions or quotes, neither of which qualifies as significant coverage. My searches find only more of the same: there's none of the sort of in-depth coverage of Paras herself needed to pass the GNG. She also doesn't seem to pass WP:NACTOR since most of the roles cited are comparatively minor. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:11, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Luís Pimenta (footballer, born 1996)
- Luís Pimenta (footballer, born 1996) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails notability guidelines, though did play 2 cup games for Boavista. Over 100 AFDs have shown that this low number of pro games is not enough. Now plays on the district tier, i.e. the fifth tier of Portuguese football. Geschichte (talk) 08:23, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 September 12. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 08:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:23, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per both the above. Fails GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 03:50, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Weak keep passes NFOOTY, and has long lower league career.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - mentioned trivially in this Zero Zero news article but almost zero coverage elsewhere as far as I can see Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:50, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Geschichte (talk) 07:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
The Snapdragons
- The Snapdragons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This page was previously nominated 13 years ago: it was kept on the basis that they had toured, received national airplay (including a Peel session) and released two albums. Simply gigging and releasing albums don't meet the current criteria at WP:NBAND. While it's possible that a Peel session would fulfill criterion no. 12, I'm not convinced that this alone warrants the band having an article: over 4000 sessions were held, and I would argue that this alone doesn't get the band over the bar. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 08:33, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Two albums on Native Records, Two Radio 1 sessions (one for John Peel, one for Simon Mayo), and they got plenty of press while they were around, which unfortunately was during a bit of a black hole as far as the internet's concerned. --Michig (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - I can remember this band but am unable to find any reliable coverage in a standard web search or a Google Books search (they were pre-Internet). The article certainly needs to be cleaned up, and I volunteer to do so if User:Michig can deliver some of the "plenty of press" mentioned in their vote. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 22:22, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - there is nothing in the Encyclopaedia of Popular Music (volume vii) by Colin Larkin ISBN 1561592374. Sorry. The joy of all things (talk) 12:58, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:NBAND and WP:SIGCOV. I have subscription access to PROQUEST which includes most of the entertainment/music publications in the UK and the USA going back over a century, and absolutely zero coverage of this group was found. Additionally, nothing in the archives of The Guardian, The Observer, or The Independent. Found nothing in britishnewspaperarchives.com either. In short, not convinced that there is press on this group. All we have is primary sources which lack independence. Not notable.4meter4 (talk) 02:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- Weak Keep. Like doomsdayer520 I remember this band. I've added some references from Melody Maker (a specialist UK music weekly) and a passing reference from The Times. It's disappointing not to easily find more. Dsp13 (talk) 11:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per Doomsdayer and Michig. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- I didn't say "keep", but challenged someone who says that there is "plenty of press" to actually deliver it. Still waiting. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Appears to fail WP:NBAND and WP:GNG. A bunch of references from the same niche magazine are not independent from one another, and the passing mention in The Times does not appear to be significant coverage that would contribute towards notability. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:40, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - Unsourced and fails WP:NBAND. Gentleman wiki (talk) 20:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Per Michig. I agree more sources, e.g the UK music press, likely exist, and the ones that are reffed aren't so bad, Simon Reynolds, for example. Wwwhatsup (talk) 08:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep the Melody Maker was one of the UK's main music publications for many years until it was merged with NME, it's certainly not a niche publication. To be covered regularly by its journalists is a strong indication of notability and there are other reliable book sources in the article. The delete vote by the editor claiming there are no sources is highly negligent in my view and one of many quick fire votes for which an editor has warned them on their talkpage. Passes WP:GNG on available evidence as per WP:AGF in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 02:03, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Trad (pejorative)
- Trad (pejorative) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
seems to be made-up nonsense. The only (sort of) reliable source is talking about twitter threads MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:20, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rayta -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:22, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.
- Delete. The use of "Trad" as a pejorative within the context of Hinduism doesn't appear to be covered in-depth by multiple reliable sources. It may well be that the term would qualify on Wiktionary, but I don't think that it meets the standards of inclusion on Wikipedia itself. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 17:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. The page should be deleted, as it is made up nonsense. Venkat TL (talk) 12:03, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Rename. (non-admin closure) Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 13:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Chaldean Catholic Territory Dependent on the Patriarch of Jerusalem
- Chaldean Catholic Territory Dependent on the Patriarch of Jerusalem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There is no source which defines the subject, and the notability of the subject is dubious. Veverve (talk) 06:45, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 06:45, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Rename -- The article actually says it is dependent on the Patriarch of Babylon, and run since 1970 by officials with various titles, initially vicar-general. It is not a diocese, but might become one. I would suggest Chaldean Catholic Territory of Jerusalem. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- Rename Yes, I agree with Peterkingiron - needs a rename. This nameing is awkward - seems to be an official catholic religious area, for which there are references, including - see link here Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:46, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Territory dependent on the Patriarch
- Territory dependent on the Patriarch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There is no source which defines the subject, and the notability of the subject is dubious. Veverve (talk) 06:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 06:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Rename -- I would suggest Eastern Catholic territories dependent on patriarchs. This is essentially a list article, so that it does not require sources: the sources will be within the articles listed. Part of my reason for wanting a rename is that there appear to be three patriarchs involved, Jerusalem, Antioch and Babylon (Baghdad). Peterkingiron (talk) 14:30, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Peterkingiron: This lists five patriarchs. And I do not see why the exact same information one can find on this website should be put on Wikipedia, as it would not provide any added value especially since the article does not reliably define the subject of the article. Veverve (talk) 14:39, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- That is certainly a source. However, as I read the linked articles, there are three Catholic denominations (rites), each with its own patriarch, who directly exercises jurisdiction over a non-diocesan territory. I thought this was worth ONE article. I did not find this clearly expressed on gcatholic website. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:59, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:37, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 18:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- delete At a minimum this needs some citation for the lead sentence, and yes, there do need to be some sources for the various entries. As it stands, it fails verification. Mangoe (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete by an Admin under WP:G7. (non-admin closure) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Aangename kennismaking
- Aangename kennismaking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I found no reliable coverage. A prod was removed from the article by the article creator in 2007. SL93 (talk) 05:49, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 06:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 06:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. There is a blog that shows the beginning of a clipping from a TV magazine but that just isn't enough. Focus on sports was incorrect so I fixed that. If others find better sources, I would be happy to reconsider. gidonb (talk) 15:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 11:39, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Verde Pulgar
- Verde Pulgar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication of notability. PepperBeast (talk) 20:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. I could find no RS on this topic.4meter4 (talk) 20:35, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 05:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, promotional article from SPA editor. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:10, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as clearly just promoting that one person's neologism to get search hits. W Nowicki (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. —ScottyWong— 17:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Pro-Europeanism
- Pro-Europeanism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
It's unclear what "Pro-Europeanism" means, and most of the article is an unsourced and indiscriminate list of political parties. I don't think there's an actual topic here; the synthesis between "supports specific EU measures" and "supports the concept of multi-nationalism" is too great. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Strong Keep: The article can be cleaned up/improved- 100% agreed. But, just because the intro is slightly vague, it does not justify the deletion in my opinion. From what I have come to understand, this article hosts various political parties within greater Europe that are "Pro-EU" to a degree (as stated in their respective ideologies/manifestos). I believe the definition can be clarified to better reflect that. Best, Archives908 (talk) 23:48, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Weak keep and address concerns through editing. I was expecting to find a largely unreferenced article when reading the nomination; but with 52 citations I don't think a claim of lacks sourcing can be made. A more fair assessment is that this article is only partially sourced. It's a little difficult to give an opinion on this topic because the two foundational sources for the concept are both offline references. If the nominator had actually stated that the offline sources cited didn't actually support the conceptual framework, or that the text was somehow an original synthesis of those works than I would be inclined to vote the other way. However, it's not clear the nominator has actually read those sources. As is, I'm inclined to WP:AGF that the original contributor has faithfully interpreted the offline sources and that there is RS supporting this conceptual framework in order for it to pass GNG. That said, I wouldn't doubt that OR/SYNTH has creeped in elsewhere, and that a thorough combing through the sources that are cited and trimming down of the article is needed. What we really need is to tag this with Template:Expert needed, because this is a puzzle that requires more than just the typical AFD once over.4meter4 (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 05:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Weak keep, 4meter4 sums it up best IMHO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Needs better sourcing or weak delete. This is a really hard one, the term is clearly very widely used, but it strikes me as something that is not presented as an ideology in itself. I would be much more comfortable if somebody could link an article which defines Pro-Europeanism, rather than attributing it as a position to an individual or party. Boynamedsue (talk) 11:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep It's very clear what pro-Europeanism is but if people don't get it they can read something like this. And, as for the attitude of the various parties, here's a book on the subject. See also Pan-European nationalism, Pan-European identity and other related articles. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:50, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- "It's very clear what x is" is not a valid argument that it meets WP:GNG. The opinion article that you link is not valid to provide notability, the book is probably much better. I could not find the passage where "pro-Europeanism" is defined, as it is paywalled and none of the hits in the book for "pro-Europeanism" defined it close enough to the term for me to see it. But if you have found a definition in there, put it up and I will happily change my vote to keep. --Boynamedsue (talk) 06:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- The nomination says nothing about WP:GNG whereas it does claim that "It's unclear what "Pro-Europeanism" means". I have therefore refuted the nomination by providing some counter-examples. Q.E.D. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:55, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- That the word "pro-European" and its derivative "pro-Europeanism" are used is not doubted by anyone. That "Pro-Europeanism" constitutes an ideology which meets GNG has still not been demonstrated. If you find a scholarly article or two which does this, you should link them, because that it is more or less game over for the AfD.--Boynamedsue (talk) 16:39, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- The nomination says nothing about WP:GNG whereas it does claim that "It's unclear what "Pro-Europeanism" means". I have therefore refuted the nomination by providing some counter-examples. Q.E.D. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:55, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- "It's very clear what x is" is not a valid argument that it meets WP:GNG. The opinion article that you link is not valid to provide notability, the book is probably much better. I could not find the passage where "pro-Europeanism" is defined, as it is paywalled and none of the hits in the book for "pro-Europeanism" defined it close enough to the term for me to see it. But if you have found a definition in there, put it up and I will happily change my vote to keep. --Boynamedsue (talk) 06:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Unfortunately this article does what so many do when struggling to find good sources treating a subject as a whole: become a list. The article has many reliable sources but they mainly seem to be pointing to particular parties being "Pro-Europe" which is a quite self-explanatory phrase but does not, as far as I can see, point to a larger movement or idea. The usage seems to be limited to speaking about varying national attitudes towards Europe and the EU. At best, the New Statesman articles [31] [32] can be seen as primary sources (and are opinion pieces) talking around the idea and trying to define it rather than speaking about an already defined concept. Writing this I have talked myself into a delete !vote. At my most generous I would say draftify until it is better than just a list. Political parties change stance all the time so I think it is unmaintainable in its current form. A last point would be to contrast this article with Euroscepticism which has no problem defining the term, its ideology, history etc. Vladimir.copic (talk) 08:35, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Sources have been provided, and not rebutted; promotional material seems to have been dumped. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Naya Dane (singer)
- Naya Dane (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NMUSICBIO and was rejected twice in AFC earlier [33] TheChronium 08:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheChronium 08:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 12:37, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 12:37, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
WeakKeep There's a few Nigerian music sources like TooXclusive,[34] City People Magazine,[35] and Hip Hop World Magazine.[36] I don't know any of these but they're apparently notable publications. This seems like enough to meet gng. The page needs some work but I've already cleaned it up a lot. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:30, 28 August 2021 (UTC)- Strong Delete — Per apt rationale by TheChronium I’m an expert in Nigeria-related sources and I can say expressly say that none of the sources used in the article establish notability. A before search turns up nothing cogent. Celestina007 (talk) 23:21, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:11, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per BuySomeApples. Seems to have enough independent RS to pass criteria 1 WP:NMUSICBIO. Celestina007's and the nominator's arguments are not convincing. We have three independent publications with reasonably in-depth coverage, and said sources are quality enough to have their own wikipedia pages and are independently notable media. I'm not seeing anything about the publications themselves to indicate they are unreliable, so in the absence of a cogent argument for deletion it's a keep.4meter4 (talk) 23:04, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 05:10, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - promotional article by blocked COI account. Best to not waste proper volunteers' time with spam like this. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per BuySomeApples and 4meter4. Celestina007 hasn't stated why articles in three notable publications don't establish notability. NemesisAT (talk) 11:20, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. —ScottyWong— 17:24, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Senior Member, Board of Revenue, Sindh
- Senior Member, Board of Revenue, Sindh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article is about a position within a sub-division of the local government of the Pakistani province of Sindh. While this seems like a distinctly niche topic, I would not object to its notability if there was coverage about the position itself (that is, not about its holders). The article is unreferenced and I have not found any significant coverage of the position. Yes, there is a government website proving that this position exists, but existence does not equal notability according to WP:GNG. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
I disagree, because there are many positions such as those of Ministers which are junior to SMBR. SMBR even according to Wikipedia's page on Sindh Government regards SMBR as one of Sindh's top positions. Categories can be easily added and I recommend that they are done at the soonest.
- Comment No significant coverage cited. Improvement needed by adding more independent, reliable sources. Multi7001 (talk) 18:38, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 02:05, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Improvement needed to add more independent sources. There are official websites on this position, suggesting its importance, however more verification is needed. Suggestion to give deadlines, or otherwise to remove page if independent sources not added. Burberry999 (talk) 18:29, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
That is understandable, however the two arguments above are extremely different. While one is arguing that the page is not relevant, the other is arguing regarding the credibility of the specific page and not the topic itself. Therefore I suggest to clear the page from deletion, and give it a certain time period in which the suggestions can be implemented. If they have not been done so in that given time-frame we may go ahead and delete the page.IBRAHIMNAWAZOVO (talk) 07:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
very much in shock to see that one could say that the topic of SMBR is not relevant. perhaps the user should re-direct their focus on pages regarding other topics or shall perhaps education themselves in topics of such matter. The issue of adding more sources is not an issue and can be resolved. Even if not resolved, it does not warrant one to delete the entire page, and that is devoid of all logic.Arhsquad01 (talk) 08:03, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete or Redirect and selective merge to Board of Revenue, Sindh.4meter4 (talk) 06:50, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 05:07, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - this administrative role at the provincial level does not seem inherently notable. And the sources do not suggest it is either. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Cthulhu Mythos. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:44, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Cthulhu Mythos cults
- Cthulhu Mythos cults (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This seems to fail WP:GNG/WP:NLIST, BEFORE is not helping, only content I see is in-universe. It seems like a fancrufty and ORish (for what is footnoted, sources mix works by various authors, mosty post HPL, and even RPG-books info, and I think some fan-page invention as well (?) spin-off of the table at Elements_of_the_Cthulhu_Mythos#Cults (a terrible article that needs merging back to the main CM article, see merge proposal there). I suggest this for now is converted to a redirect to the linked section, which hopefully will be merged back to the main CM article to prevent this WP:CONTENTFORKing of non-notable Lovecraftian fancruft. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:12, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:12, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:12, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:12, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- Merge or Keep This topic actually seems to be at least of some interest to secondary sources: First, while The Encyclopedia Cthulhiana is produced by a company specializing in role-playing games, as far as I can tell from the Wikipedia article, Google Books and Amazon, is not an RPG supplement and should therefore be treated as a secondary (tertiary?) source. At least those elements currently sourced to it should be WP:PRESERVEd and not simply redirected. The Occult World talks about how Lovecraft's fictional cults were influenced by and in turn gave cues to real-world occult organizations. And Aliens, Robots & Virtual Reality Idols in the Science Fiction of HP Lovecraft, Isaac Asimov and William Gibson in the "Influences on Lovecraft I." section talks about how Cotton Mather was an influence on Lovecraft's concept of cults. I am not sure if this were better treated as a stand-alone article or as an element in the larger Cthulhu Mythos, but I agree with Piotrus on that point that a WP:CONTENTFORK with Elements_of_the_Cthulhu_Mythos#Cults should be avoided by deciding at which place better to treat this topic and move all material there. Daranios (talk) 20:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, wait there is more! It seems to get a proper idea it would be neccessary to do a WP:BEFORE search on all the individual cults listed. Take the Google Scholar search for "Esoteric Order of Dagon" and especially this 14-page paper: Cults of Lovecraft: the impact of HP Lovecraft's fiction on contemporary occult practices. Daranios (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- Well, our article claims right now that The Encyclopedia Cthulhiana is an RPG supplement. I'll need to research it more, but the last time I checked this source it was just a plot-summary type of an work. Your findings on how HPL's works inspired real world cults/occult practices are fascinating, and such a section might be of use in making this topic notable (right now the articles are pure plot summary). I am not sure if this would be best covered in a stand-alone article about cults; I still think it is reasonable to merge the plot summary back to parent articles, while adding a new section about 'occult influences'. We do discuss how HPL's work influenced other writers, it does seem that we should also discuss how his work influences some folks who took it too seriously too. But I think the readers would be better served by a section in Cthulhu Mythos rather than one in the much less visible Cthulhu Mythos cults article, particularly given that this section would be hidden near the bottom anyway, after fancrufty plot summaries. Might as well have it hidden in a more visible article. Ps. Regarding EOoD, would be nice to add some sources to Deep_One#Esoteric_Order_of_Dagon (also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esoteric Order of Dagon; if there are good sources we could restore it - two years ago nobody found them...). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:18, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Piotrus: Right, The Encyclopedia Cthulhiana article says it is an RPG supplement. I did not find that claim supported anywhere, though. All comments I've seen say it is an encyclopedia for the Cthulhu mythos; the Origins award is a "Special Achievement Awards", whatever that means, not an RPG award; this review tells us that, while useful for the game, it does not contain game stats, and was not published in the RPG line of Chaosium, but in its line of fiction (while again comments tell us: Beware, it is not a piece of fiction but a lexicon); lastly, this preview tells us that it "is the first attempt to provide a guide to Lovecraft's Cthulhu Mythos since Lin Carter's "The Godes" and "The Books" ... This book collects data on the books, gods, characters and places which make up the Cthulhu Mythos." I assume it contains mostly plot-summary, but also, according again to this review, which pieces of fiction the elements come from - which should be worth something in this prototypical leviathan of a shared universe. As usual, I think such a source can very well contribute to notability - as long as other sources can provide the necessary complementary information so as not to run afoul of WP:ALLPLOT. Which we have in this case. All that said, I am not against a merge at this point, even though I can imagine keeping the article for future expansion just as well. Daranios (talk) 14:44, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:43, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Not notable enough to justify a Wikipedia article and there is not significant coverage.RamotHacker (talk) 21:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- @RamotHacker: What about the coverage in secondary sources discussed above? Daranios (talk) 10:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- I second Daranios. This needs a rewrite to be considered for a keep, but I'd think redirect would be better than outright delete even if no editing is carried out. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete or redirect. There's nothing in the article worth salvaging. If the above sources can amount to anything significant, it's best to start fresh in the main article and go from there. TTN (talk) 20:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - Looks like a keep per the sources identified above. No need for WP:TNT, just need to strip out all of the cruft and make a more focused article. However, on the editing side, I feel the parent article (Cthulhu Mythos) could support this content as a section with a brief summary of the importance of cults in the mythos and a few bullet points on the most relevant individual fictional cults. So, I would also support a Merge if that were preferred. Suriname0 (talk) 00:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per Daranios.4meter4 (talk) 00:43, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 05:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Merge topic can be adequately covered within the Cthulhu Mythos article. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep for the good reasons given by Daranios. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Merge To Cthulhu Mythos as an WP:ATD and since the parent article is already fairly short as-is.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- Merge per WP:SIZERULE and preserve any worthwhile content to Cthulhu Mythos. While I disagree that a discussion about fictional cults in the Cthulhu Mythos is non-notable for inclusion on Wikipedia, and in my view this should not have gone to AfD, the readable prose for the Cthulhu Mythos article is actually quite short at less then 9kb, and this article is roughly 6.5kb. Combining both articles and trimming prose anything deemed to be superfluous is a good editorial decision in my opinion. Haleth (talk) 07:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mlb96 (talk) 22:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Satomi (singer)
- Satomi (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article has had 0 sources since it was created, and for good reason: I can't find any reliable sources about this person that aren't just Wikipedia mirrors. Meets none of the criteria in WP:NMUSIC either. (Full disclosure: If this article is deleted, I plan to write an article about a different singer named Satomi under this same title.) Mlb96 (talk) 03:53, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mlb96 (talk) 03:53, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mlb96 (talk) 03:53, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mlb96 (talk) 03:53, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 06:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment/Question To help in sorting sources, who's the other singer you want to make an article about? Jumpytoo Talk 06:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- Satomi. Mlb96 (talk) 21:25, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, I had to do that. Check User:Mlb96/sandbox for my draft. I should stress that I genuinely believe that the person the article is currently about is not notable, irrespective of my desire to reuse the article title for a different person. Mlb96 (talk) 21:25, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- Satomi. Mlb96 (talk) 21:25, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Has three charting titles on both the Oricon albums and singles charts, respectively [37]. She meets WP:SINGER#2. There are some sources at ja:SATOMI', but as a mid-2000s act, I wonder if coverage is lost in offline sources. ✗plicit 12:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. ✗plicit 23:53, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Cameron Davis (attorney)
- Cameron Davis (attorney) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:BASIC. I couldn't find much on Google regarding his role as Great Lakes Czar in the Obama administration, suggesting that the role isn't very notable. The sources provided in the article are either non-independent or unreliable. Only one pertinent source (Huffington Post) appears to meet WP:RSP.
His role in the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, a unit of local government, is non-notable per WP:NPOL. Edge3 (talk) 03:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Edge3 (talk) 03:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Edge3 (talk) 03:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete promotional article about a lawyer simply doing his/her job. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. As a Czar he has significant coverage where he is the main subject. The best of which is James Janega (June 21, 2009). "Guardian of the Great Lakes: Obama Names Cameron Davis to organize restoration effort". Chicago Tribune. p. 3a.; a substantial article on Davis. Additionally, he has been criticized in media in that role in major publications like: "Obama's Many Policy Czar's Draw Ire From Conservatives". The Washington Post. 16 September 2009. p. A6 S. The Czar position was controvercial and has gotten significant coverage. This book provides some context to his role in the Obama administration which was divisive This book analyzes Davis's contributions to an article in The New York Times. There is a profile of him in this book. Here are a few articles he was interviewed for: [38], [39], Other coverage, includes [40], [41], [42], [43], Additionally, there are a lot of primary government sources in google books, and there are many articles in Chicago Tribune, The Washington Post, and The New York Times in which he is interviewed for his opinions or policy making in regards to water management/ environmental issues extending back to the mid 1990s. Best.4meter4 (talk) 02:10, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 15:04, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep we have notability WP:SIGCOV Lightburst (talk) 16:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:GNG. Just a jumble of archived PDFs for sources. KidAd • SPEAK 00:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Indian Idol#Season 12. ✗plicit 12:54, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Pawandeep Rajan
- Pawandeep Rajan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't meet WP:SINGER. The subject of this article is only notable for participating in a reality television series. Therefore this article should be redirected to Indian Idol Season 12 per WP:REALITYBIO. Eevee01(talk) 02:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eevee01(talk) 02:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eevee01(talk) 02:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:13, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect to Indian Idol#Season 12 per nom. Not independently notable per WP:REALITYBIO. -- Ab207 (talk) 13:46, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Ri Djavi Alexandra
- Ri Djavi Alexandra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't meet WP:ENT. Eevee01(talk) 02:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eevee01(talk) 02:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Eevee01(talk) 02:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eevee01(talk) 02:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Strong Keep This article in a question does not fail WP:GNG in my opinion. She played a significant role in the movie Kanchana 3 which was a huge hit and she also appeared in several popular music videos. And when we google Ri Djavi Alexandra, we can see significant coverage in several notable channels. Thanks, Billyatthewheels
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:55, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete No evidence of playing multiple significant roles to meet WP:NACTOR. Also a case of WP:BLP1E (recent death) where nearly all the sources are about their death, in addition to a case of sexual harrassment. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: agree with Ab207, that this is a case of recent death WP:BLP1E and not enough significant works to establish WP:NACTOR defcon5 (talk) 05:01, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:NACTRESS. As a recent death fails WP:BLP1E. However, given the sensational nature of her death, it's possible that her death may become notable later if there is sustained coverage. It is WP:TOOSOON though to determine if that is the case.4meter4 (talk) 01:27, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 12:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Zetwerk
- Zetwerk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This entity's page is promotional one. Lacks indepth / significant coverage WP:SIGCOV. Possible WP:COI. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 01:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Abdulhaseebatd (talk) 02:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abdulhaseebatd (talk) 02:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment. Hatchens Can you provide a more detailed source analysis? From just looking at the first few sources, they seem to be independent quality RS that would be perfectly suitable for establishing GNG.4meter4 (talk) 03:01, 12 Septembe*r 2021 (UTC)
- Keep (1) The subject complies to WP:GNG being described by the country edition of Forbes as being one of the world's largest in its speciality. (2) Presently there are six reliable neutral independent sources cited whose subject is the subject of this article. So it complies to WP:SIGCOV. (3) The allegation that I am connected to the subject is false. I have no connection whatsoever. The allegation conflict of interest is unfounded. No WP:COI (4) The article blandly states facts based on independent reliable sources, it is not promotional. (Article creator) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: 4meter4 thank you for asking. This entity is very much similar to an article that I have mistaken to be notable and approved it. Afterward, the page got nominated for an AfD discussion and during that "discussion" many good reviewers (and admins) came and discussed the RS links originating from India and how companies are misinterpreting the notability clauses. You can access that discussion at the following link Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simplilearn (2nd_nomination). Now, let's focus on this page and list the RED FLAGS.
Page Sources Analysis by Hatchens
Source Sites | Links | Date of Publication | Written by Staff Writer | Reliability as per WP:RS | Significant Coverage as per WP:SIGCOV | Comments by Hatchens |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Forbes India | LINK | Aug 30, 2021 / Last Updated on Sep 3, 2021 | YES | YES (Only if the article is written by an editor or a staff writer) | YES | Despite written by a staff writer, I would consider this as a general announcement/PR. Fails WP:ORGIND (Part of a coordinated PR campaign) |
TechCrunch | LINK | August 23, 2021 | YES | NO | YES | Announcement/PR. Fails WP:ORGIND (Part of a coordinated PR campaign) |
LiveMint | LINK | August 24, 2021 | YES | NO (LiveMint is not considered reliable source | YES | Announcement/PR. Fails WP:ORGIND (Part of a coordinated PR campaign) |
Business Standard | LINK | August 23, 2021 | YES | NO | YES | Announcement/PR. Fails WP:ORGIND (Part of a coordinated PR campaign) |
Business Line | LINK | August 24, 2021 | YES | YES (Only if the article is written by an editor or a staff writer) | YES | Can be considered as reliable but it's still is a part of a coordinated PR campaign because of sharing the same date publication with rest of the sources. I was not hoping this from The Hindu especially after following this closure Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 305#The Hindu
From another angle, if we consider this article as the "Interview of the CEO", then it definitely fails WP:ORGIND. |
LiveMint | LINK | May 27, 2021 | YES | NO | YES | Announcement/PR. Fails WP:ORGIND (Part of a coordinated PR campaign) |
Now, here would be a question popping up in everyone's mind? Why we should consider this page a part of an elaborated PR campaign? My reasons are as follows;
Check the date range of the majority of sources - Aug 23 to Sep 3, 2021. Out of 6 sources, 5 shares that common date range - some sort of paraphrased/part-by-part news releases talking about the company's plans for the future (incl. CEO's interview). It qualifies for WP: ADMASQ - a PR tactic in which press releases are masquerading as valid/credible as news articles. So, the sudden rise of press releases disguised as credible news and at the same time launching of a Wikipedia page... simply raises major RED FLAG which we can easily designate as - "A well-coordinated PR campaign".
The second important act of smartness by the creator is to pass the entity's article as a stub. So, that if any unnecessary heat is generated it can be deflected via draftification. Also, a well-experienced editor will never create a page of the size of lede. He/she may experiment and expand it in the draft and then move it into namespace (AfC submission route can be taken, but not mandatory). But, this is the opposite of what the creator's editing history shows. - Hatchens (talk) 05:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- (1) On what basis is say TechCrunch considered an unreliable source? (2) The unicorn status obtained by the subject gave it media attention and eyeballs, like an Olympic medal or an Everest ascent, however the notability isn't the unicorn status but that it is considered as one of the world's largest in its speciality. Certainly encyclopaedic. (3) Wikipedia is a collaborative project and an eternal WIP, the subject is encyclopaedic, article has been created others will expand it. That is how it works. (4) Some may prefer the draft path, I don't, I use my judgement as regards to notability, and create article in main space, my choice. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:31, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Checked Mint's article there is said, "After struggling in the initial years, the Livemint website now gets more visitors (9 million more, per source) than the former leader, Economic Times." By what yardstick is Mint a market leader not a reliable source.? Thus the claims of lack of reliability need to substantiated to be taken seriously. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:45, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- The article was created because writing gives pleasure to the creator. Finally it is said that Wikipedia isn't a reliable source even for a school essay, the subject received 150 million USD and has been valued at 1.3 billion USD before the article was created. If an understatement be made, it is clear as daylight that the subject doesn't need promotion from Wikipedia, so whatever the fate of the AfD, chill. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:36, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Checked Mint's article there is said, "After struggling in the initial years, the Livemint website now gets more visitors (9 million more, per source) than the former leader, Economic Times." By what yardstick is Mint a market leader not a reliable source.? Thus the claims of lack of reliability need to substantiated to be taken seriously. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:45, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: Dear Yogesh Khandke, for your kind information please refer to the following links; 1.LiveMint's reliability discussion (from Archives). Click the LINK; 2. TechCrunch's reliability discussion (from Archives). Click the LINK. Kindly keep a tab on "source reliability-related" discussions. It will help you in performing the correct assessments. And it's a humble request - please, refrain from having these kinds of articles created as per your "false assumptions". No matter what, how experienced we become - the WP:TEA is the best place to get our doubts cleared. Ask somebody and then proceed. -Hatchens (talk) 08:39, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- You assume I haven't seen it, it doesn't mean anything, if anyone wishes to deem any source unreliable, it needs more than stray comments. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:42, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Yogesh Khandke - if you are aware of the reliability-related discussions on your mentioned sources, and the results are inconclusive. Then, so what is the logic you used for creating the article in the first place? Just because "the subject received 150 million USD and has been valued at 1.3 billion USD before the article was created" - your words. Is this that logic? I'm sorry for asking this question. But, here is another question (I'm unable to stop my curiosity, please forgive me) - "The article was created because writing gives pleasure to the creator. Finally, it is said that Wikipedia isn't a reliable source even for a school essay..." Further, "If an understatement be made, it is clear as daylight that the subject doesn't need promotion from Wikipedia, so whatever the fate of the AfD, chill i.e., WP:CHILL." So, here are few more questions, do you believe in the concept of Wikipedia? or the Principles of Wikipedia? Or are you harboring any notion that editors like you are doing mercy to Wikipedia by creating such substandard pages? Or are you lending a "Hand of God" to the "subjects" like Zetwerk? Now, I'm extremely curious because at a personal level I never fathomed myself to be bigger than this platform. So, for me, your arrogance is very hard to digest. Technically, I surrender in front of your kindness and now please let others assess this page. -Hatchens (talk) 09:13, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Hatchens One more time; chill, be civil, please, "let others assess this page" are golden words. Thanks. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:29, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Yogesh Khandke - if you are aware of the reliability-related discussions on your mentioned sources, and the results are inconclusive. Then, so what is the logic you used for creating the article in the first place? Just because "the subject received 150 million USD and has been valued at 1.3 billion USD before the article was created" - your words. Is this that logic? I'm sorry for asking this question. But, here is another question (I'm unable to stop my curiosity, please forgive me) - "The article was created because writing gives pleasure to the creator. Finally, it is said that Wikipedia isn't a reliable source even for a school essay..." Further, "If an understatement be made, it is clear as daylight that the subject doesn't need promotion from Wikipedia, so whatever the fate of the AfD, chill i.e., WP:CHILL." So, here are few more questions, do you believe in the concept of Wikipedia? or the Principles of Wikipedia? Or are you harboring any notion that editors like you are doing mercy to Wikipedia by creating such substandard pages? Or are you lending a "Hand of God" to the "subjects" like Zetwerk? Now, I'm extremely curious because at a personal level I never fathomed myself to be bigger than this platform. So, for me, your arrogance is very hard to digest. Technically, I surrender in front of your kindness and now please let others assess this page. -Hatchens (talk) 09:13, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- You assume I haven't seen it, it doesn't mean anything, if anyone wishes to deem any source unreliable, it needs more than stray comments. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:42, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment, I am still considering what to suggest for this article but regarding the source analysis, Hatchens, in the RSN discussion on Livemint, the consensus seems to be that it is a reliable source. Also on what ground are you saying Business Standard is unreliable? There is no significant discussion on it. If anything Forbes India (post–2013) may be a problematic source here, note it's only a franchise over which Forbes doesn't have any editorial control. Tayi Arajakate Talk 09:37, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Tayi Arajakate, note: The Indian edition of Forbes is run by Network18, which transmits visual programming for child consumption in their regions as well as musical programming (e.g., MTV India). It should not be a problematic source in this instance. Multi7001 (talk) 14:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- Multi7001, the fact that Network18 also operates music and children's channels is not really relevant to the reliability of Forbes India. This is also a bit offtopic at this point, if you want to discuss reliability of particular sources, I would suggest starting a discussion on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, otherwise I don't mind continuing it on my talk page either. Tayi Arajakate Talk 13:35, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: In support with the nominator's analysis of the citations. The company is failing WP:CORPDEPTH. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 13:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - How are LiveMint and BS held to be unreliable? TrangaBellam (talk) 18:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: I slightly disagree with the page sources analysis by Hatchens. Some of the sources cited, including Forbes and Business-Standard, are reliable and demonstrate notability. Articles that read with a slight PR-tone but are published by news staff or editors are not different from other articles written by news staff. Many articles in news are written because of PR outreach or other similar reasons and hundreds of thousands of such links are in big Wiki articlespaces. Nearly all newsrooms have some extent of close relations with PR firms. OP clearly has very minimal knowledge of how journalism works. I agree, however, that TechCrunch and LiveMint are less reliable, but could still be useful to verify biographical information only if no other sources exist. Multi7001 (talk) 03:31, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Livemint seems reliable enough for the information in question. That said, I disagree with the analysis done above. Also see coverage by CNBC TV18. LearnIndology (talk) 13:02, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete I've spent some time looking at references for this and the ones included here. First off - since this is a company/organization, the appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP which provides more details on how to assess references to establish the notability of companies/organizations. Two critical sections of that guideline are WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND (and especially the definition of "Independent Content" in ORGIND). I'm going to assume all references are from reliable publications. Hatchen's table above makes the same points but I've reframed the discussion to focus specifically on NCORP. With that in mind, I've redone the analysis table above:
Reference | Date of Publication | "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND | In-Depth Coverage as per WP:CORPDEPTH | Establishes Notability |
---|---|---|---|---|
Forbes India | Aug 30, 2021 / Last Updated on Sep 3, 2021 | No, it relies entirely on information provided by company employees. It is a (fairly standard for Forbes) promo piece to "profile" the company, vision, founders, etc. | Yes | No, Fails WP:ORGIND |
TechCrunch | August 23, 2021 | No. There are dozens of "articles" all making the same "announcement". For example: Economic Times India, BusinessAPAC, EnTrackr, RedNewswire and loads more | Yes | No, its all and entirely based on announcements from the company and/or their investors, fails ORGIND |
LiveMint | August 24, 2021 | No, entirely based on an interview with the CEO | Yes | Fails WP:ORGIND |
Business Standard | August 23, 2021 | No for the same reasons as the TechCrunch reference above | Yes | See reasons above, fails WP:ORGIND |
Hindu Businessline | August 24, 2021 | No, entirely based on interview with the CEO | Yes | Fails WP:ORGIND |
Livemint 2 | May 27, 2021 | No, it is a PR / Company announcement also covered by Economic Times India, CIO Insider India, etc | Yes | No, entirely based on PR, fails WP:ORGIND |
CNBC | Aug 20, 2021 | No, it also relies on the same PR / Company announcements as above | No, only refers to one funding round, not even a basic company description | No, fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH |
- In addition, as per WP:SIRS, each reference must meet all the requirements therefore meeting CORPDEPTH but failing ORGIND means that the references may not be used to establish notability (although may continue to be used to support facts/information within the article assuming they meet WP:RS, etc). With the above in mind, pinging Yogesh Khandke who relied on WP:GNG and LearnIndology who only looked at Livemint from a WP:RS point of view and included another reference which doesn't appear to meet NCORP either. I say the topic is WP:TOOSOON but its rapid growth suggests it may soon appear in analyst reports on the sector and will more than likely be written about outside of company announcements and PR. HighKing++ 21:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- HighKing, that is a good, informative chart. Just to be clear, most of those sources are not reliable nor should be used to establish meeting WP:GNG. However, Forbes India, LiveMint, and Business-Standard are useful for verifying biographical info, if no other sources are found. Multi7001 (talk) 23:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Multi7001, at AfD I'm only concerned with whether the topic meets the criteria for notability and to a much lesser extent whether the facts and information contained within the article are accurate (and not just promo). Therefore when I say a reference "fails NCORP", I am not saying it cannot be used within the article, just that it cannot be used to establish notability. In effect there are two types of requirements for reference - one type for facts and info and another for establishing notability. GNG is a generic guideline for topics that don't have a speciality guideline (see WP:SNG) and NCORP is the SNG for companies/organizations. NCORP does not add additional requirements but it removes some ambiguity and confusion in interpretation and provides contextually relevant examples for applying the guidelines to companies/organizations. HighKing++ 11:11, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- Hi HighKing, if you take a look at this page moved to articlespace -> Pamela Rai Menges, it apparently did not fail WP:GNG, however, it relies on similar PR coverage as this subject. IMO, Zetwerk should not be considered for deletion. Multi7001 (talk) 20:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Multi7001, clearly you don't realise that the criteria for establishing notability for people is governed by WP:BIO and the criteria for organizations is WP:NCORP. These guidelines are very different and place emphasis on different aspects of requirements for establishing notability. The reason we have different guidelines is because a "one size fits all" results in some topics being overwhelmed with poor quality articles or promotional spammy articles. HighKing++ 20:41, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- Hi HighKing, if you take a look at this page moved to articlespace -> Pamela Rai Menges, it apparently did not fail WP:GNG, however, it relies on similar PR coverage as this subject. IMO, Zetwerk should not be considered for deletion. Multi7001 (talk) 20:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Multi7001, at AfD I'm only concerned with whether the topic meets the criteria for notability and to a much lesser extent whether the facts and information contained within the article are accurate (and not just promo). Therefore when I say a reference "fails NCORP", I am not saying it cannot be used within the article, just that it cannot be used to establish notability. In effect there are two types of requirements for reference - one type for facts and info and another for establishing notability. GNG is a generic guideline for topics that don't have a speciality guideline (see WP:SNG) and NCORP is the SNG for companies/organizations. NCORP does not add additional requirements but it removes some ambiguity and confusion in interpretation and provides contextually relevant examples for applying the guidelines to companies/organizations. HighKing++ 11:11, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- HighKing, that is a good, informative chart. Just to be clear, most of those sources are not reliable nor should be used to establish meeting WP:GNG. However, Forbes India, LiveMint, and Business-Standard are useful for verifying biographical info, if no other sources are found. Multi7001 (talk) 23:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep, per HighKing's table ironically. The so called "PR/Announcements" are all different outlets covering the same stories such as Zetwerk becoming an unicorn or the company entering the aerospace industry, etc. The language used and details provided are vastly different in each of their articles, which indicates that the individual stories are being covered independently rather than the articles being reproductions of a press release and the like. If they were so they'd all more or less resemble each other but they clearly don't, the fact that the articles also have bylines indicates the same. Disincluding the interview based ones, most of these meet WP:ORGIND. I don't see any reasonable justification for claiming that everyone who has covered them is not independent or as was previously being claimed not reliable. Though honestly in terms of WP:CORPDEPTH the articles are pretty borderline but they do provide somewhat of an overview. Tayi Arajakate Talk 13:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- Response Just to clarify, the articles actually say that the company and/or the lead investor made announcements/statements in relation to the "unicorn" valuation.
- For example, the second sentence in the first paragraph of the TechCrunch article says
Bangalore-based Zetwerk said on Monday it has raised $150 million in a Series E financing round
. So there definitely was an announcement or Press Release. Later on in that same article there is also reference to a statement from Jeremy Goldstein of D1 Capital Partners. - The Business Standard article in very first sentence says
Zetwerk, the world’s largest custom manufacturing platform, on Monday said that it has raised $150 million in an equity round led by New York-based D1 Capital Partners.
Also note it was published on the same day. That's not a coincidence.
- For example, the second sentence in the first paragraph of the TechCrunch article says
- In tems of the move into aerospace:
- The 2nd Livemint article says in the very first sentence
BENGALURU: Zetwerk Manufacturing, a contract manufacturer of capital and consumer goods, on Thursday said it has forayed into aerospace and defence sectors to develop and build products and technology for Indian and global customers.
So also very definitely based on a PR from the company.
- The 2nd Livemint article says in the very first sentence
- All of the articles include the exact same information highlighting the "unicorn" status rather than the amount/timing of the funding and to a large degree the same tone and phrasing. Some of the articles include quotations from involved parties, some provide an additional boilerplate description of the company or refer to older announcements (also not "Independent Content"). I don't think your analysis stacks up very well when you read the articles in question but I just have to reject your vague dismissal with inaccurate summaries of the detailed analysis of sources. HighKing++ 20:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah no, the articles don't say that it itself is the announcement. The presence of a line with an attributed quotation in the coverage of an event is a standard journalistic practice and doesn't make the entire coverage, non independent. Press releases tend to be short pieces with a disclaimer that it's one, certainly not bylined articles as they exist here.
- As an example from the articles you picked out here, the Business Standard article has 4 paragraphs entirely composed of secondary description which bears no resemblance with anything on the TechCrunch article. The particular quotations in the articles are likely being sourced from a press conference. And no its not a coincidence that the two articles are published on the same day since you know they are covering the same event, i.e, valuation as an unicorn which is a newsworthy event in business journalism, perhaps the answer to your question on why it is being "highlighted" is somewhere in there. Same would apply to the Livemint article, which contains multiple paragraphs describing their operation.
- Maybe somewhere there is an arguement for this being too soon and not being in-depth enough but the company is certainly receiving independent coverage. Your source analysis essentially boils down to describing all news coverage as non-independent, which doesn't appear very reasonable when one does actually look into the articles. Tayi Arajakate Talk 22:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Tayi Arajakate, ok I'll bite. I've taken another look at the Business Standard article and I've tried to identify four paragraphs that meet your description. Paragraphs 1 and 2 contain the same information as the other "unicorn"-referncing articles with the same date/time. The next three all rely entirely on quotes from the CEO and their lead investor and therefore not "Independent Content". The next (beginning with "Zetwork has demonstrated") is also based on the announcement - that information is confirmed to have originated from the company in this article from the Economic Times. The next paragraph (beginning with "Zetwork's custom manufacturing platform...") is generic boilerplate and you can see it repeated in this Capital Quest reference on the same day. So that leaves the final paragraph which lists the investors included in the round and that information is also repeated in several other places. Can you take another look because I really think that once you have read the various articles from that date you will quickly see that they're all related and not one has any "Independent Content" which can be used to establish notability. HighKing++ 21:18, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: The subject has references by reliable sources that cover it significantly, however, there many need to be more reliable, independent sources to establish notability. It nearly meets the criteria: WP:CORPDEPTH but not WP:ORGIND. Multi7001 (talk) 23:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete The references tend to repeat each other, showing their common origin in press releases. DGG ( talk ) 03:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 22:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Luca Soccer Club
- Luca Soccer Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Im renominating this again as I believe the last AFD was not properly discussed. Below I list the reasons
- The club fails NFOOTY as it hasnt played in any fully professional leagues listed by wikiproject football. Kerala Premier League is not a fully professional league. It is played by teams like Kerala Police which is not even a football club. Here the players serve as the police officers in Kerala Police.
- Failing NFOOTY means it has to pass general GNG criteria. The present sources are not enogh to meet GNG in my criteria.
- User Swd7391 who voted as keep in previous account is clearly a single purpose account. Their first edit is the keep vote in the first AFD. [44] After 20 August they have made no edit. I would like to suggest a detailed discussion here as the previous one was not properly done. Indianfootball98 (talk) 01:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Indianfootball98 (talk) 01:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Indianfootball98 (talk) 01:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Indianfootball98 (talk) 01:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: Fails NFOOTY as per the nom. Regarding GNG, my analysis of the 11 sources in the article are listed below.
- Source 1: Just a news report about Kerala Premier League.
- Source 2: Club website
- Source 3: Interview with club CEO
- Source 4: Routine Coverage and not a reliable source
- Source 5: Have some coverage but not from a reliable source
- Source 6: Routine coverage and the bridge is not a reliable source
- Source 7: Incidental coverage about foreign investment
- Source 8: Interview and not from a reliable source
- Source 9: Club website
- Source 10: News about foreign signings by the club
- Source 11: Website of club owners
- From this it is evident that the clubs fails GNG. Henriklars (talk) 06:40, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 06:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: Clearly fails GNG citeria based on the source analysis by Henriklars. The Footballean (talk) 08:22, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per comments in last month's (!!!) AFD. GiantSnowman 17:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: the club is so irrelevant we dont even know the full names of the players????Muur (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: I was not happy with the previous discussion. The club fails NFOOTY as well as GNG. The present sources are not good enough to meet GNG.Poppified talk 20:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - this nomination is borderline disruptive. Nominating something for deletion a month (a month!) after the last AFD because you didn't like the result is just silly. And its exactly what we have WP:DRV for. The analysis of sources above is disingenuous; there's nothing wrong with interviews and there's no analysis of why different sources are apparently "unreliable". The sources highlighted in the last AFD (a random sample of the sources included in the article) show this passes GNG. NFOOTY might be helpful for defining secondary criteria that allows a person or club that otherwise doesn't meet GNG to instead meet arbitrary subject-specific criteria. In this case, NFOOTY is irrelevant, and !votes that rely on it (and the disruptive nomination) should be disregarded, and this should be closed. St★lwart111 09:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: Let me clarify my statements. I am really concerned with significant coverage here. As per WP:SIGCOV, significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. I will try to explain how the article doesnt satisfy SIGCOV. There are 11 sources in the article out of which 3 are not independent ones. The 4th citation from Spotik is only a short paragraph. The first citation is about the Kerala Premier League. The 6th citation is an incidential coverage regarding clubs withdrawal from the league de to Covid 19. Another one is about a player signing. All these only gives routine coverage. So how can we say the club is passing GNG. Two sources seems good here. But they are not secondary sources. As per WP:PSTS, secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. Here these two citations are interviews with the club's CEO which makes them primary sources. Indianfootball98 (talk) 14:31, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- No, it makes that portion of the content within those sources a primary source for the purposes of verifying information in the article. The CEO didn't interview himself, decide the questions being asked, or publish the interview on his own website. An independent journalist has decided he is noteworthy enough to be interviewed (about the club), and has retained editorial oversight with regard to what is published. Your suggestion that otherwise reliable sources should be treated as being not independent because of a format choice is the "novel interpretation". If
"two sources seem good here"
then it passes WP:GNG. Besides which, short paragraphs and articles about the club's operations (as distinct from efforts by the club to promote itself) show that reliable sources have deemed the subject important enough to cover. And you still haven't addressed the nature of this nomination; the contribution of one SPA doesn't invalidate an AFD result, nor does it invalidate DRV's role in the deletion review process. St★lwart111 02:18, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- No, it makes that portion of the content within those sources a primary source for the purposes of verifying information in the article. The CEO didn't interview himself, decide the questions being asked, or publish the interview on his own website. An independent journalist has decided he is noteworthy enough to be interviewed (about the club), and has retained editorial oversight with regard to what is published. Your suggestion that otherwise reliable sources should be treated as being not independent because of a format choice is the "novel interpretation". If
- Delete: I'm against the opinion that this nomination is disruptive. It's evident that the previous AfD nomination wasn't properly discussed. The sources cited in the article doesn't help the article to meet either GNG or FOOTYN. The included sources are just random ones like player signings and club takeovers. This article clearly fails FOOTYN, and must be taken down from the mainspace. Ken Tony Shall we discuss? 13:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Then it should be taken to WP:DRV. WP:RENOM: "If the XfD discussion was closed as “keep”, generally do not renominate the page for at least six months, unless there is something new to say, and even so, usually wait a few months." Waiting just one month is incredibly poor form. St★lwart111 06:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- Stalwart111, this is a valid point. - Hatchens (talk) 09:13, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Then it should be taken to WP:DRV. WP:RENOM: "If the XfD discussion was closed as “keep”, generally do not renominate the page for at least six months, unless there is something new to say, and even so, usually wait a few months." Waiting just one month is incredibly poor form. St★lwart111 06:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - meets GNG with numerous sources, including five I just found, one, two, three, four, and five - ProQuest 2460216943. And then there's the procedural issues ... why no DRV? Nfitz (talk) 23:43, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: Except the citation from Indian Express (which is also giving routine coverage)the remaining are the same ones already present in the article. Still the article fails GNG
- Comment - I've listed this at DRV so that the last close can be reviewed (as should have happened instead of this immediate renomination). St★lwart111 06:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment:If the majority of the participants are leaning towards delete, whats the point of opening a DRV. Indianfootball98 (talk) 14:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Henriklars's analysis of sources calls some of them unreliable. Specialist websites such as https://khelnow.com/ and The Bridge can be notable, and https://khelnow.com/ and The Bridge both seems to be reasonably professional. I agree that the club's own website and that of its owners is not independent. Even routine coverage can add up to in-depth coverage, and foreign signings are a sign that the club recognizes that it needs international talent to compete and is prepared to pay for it. As for Muur's point about surnames, many football players adopt what actors would call stage names, which may have been what happened here. I would add that this AFD should not have been begun less than 6 months after the previous one closed as keep. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - per comments and discussions in the last AFD, per the fact that this should not have been renominated, and per vapid "analysis" of sources above. Interviews are not automatically not independent because the interviewee is connected to the subject. The journalist and publication (the actual source) are still independent. The sources included in the article are coverage of the subject club; the fact that some of them cover operations that are normal for a football club does not mean they are WP:ROUTINE (which covers things like statutory announcements and sports scores). The fact that something was announced by the club and then the subject of coverage by reliable sources does not make it the sort of announcement ROUTINE is talking about. The subject need not pass WP:NFOOTY if it already passes WP:GNG so arguments as to the professionalism of the league and other arbitrary football-specific criteria are irrelevant. As are arguments about not knowing the names of players; we're not discussing their notability and the club doesn't inherit notability from them any more than they from it. St★lwart111 00:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- Refer to DRV, which is the correct venue for appealing a "keep" closure last month.—S Marshall T/C 18:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- It was, but that has now been closed. Does someone want to procedurally close this too? St★lwart111 00:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- That would be weird because then it would be discussed nowhere. This should probably run its course now but it'll likely end up at DRV no matter which side this discussion falls on.—S Marshall T/C 08:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- It was, but that has now been closed. Does someone want to procedurally close this too? St★lwart111 00:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: The club doesnt have indepth coverage from the citations. Fails the WP:GNG criteria. Lorenzo the great (talk) 07:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: Above; I supported Stalwart111 on "XFD renomination" statement. But, I cannot understand this - "The subject need not pass WP:NFOOTY if it already passes WP:GNG so arguments as to the professionalism of the league and other arbitrary football-specific criteria are irrelevant". A question for Stalwart111 - Does this club passed GNG in the first place? Do you ever read wikipedia guidelines properly? or do you have an habit to make such interpretation which sometimes look extremely brilliant and as discussion progresses... they suddenly sounds extremely stupid or compromised one. I'm least bothered about the outcome of this AfD, but I'm seriously concerned about your poor interpretation of guidelines which I've witnessed in an another ongoing AfD. -Hatchens (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- As I explained there, my argument is that WP:GNG should apply because WP:GNG is our baseline notability criteria. My argument is the same there. It doesn't matter if this club doesn't pass WP:NFOOTY, because it already passes WP:GNG. And it doesn't matter if that sporting team isn't considered a sporting team or doesn't pass WP:NCORP, because it already passes WP:GNG. It's pretty simply, really. As a side note, I'm pleased you've decided to let your personal attacks and bad faith ooze from one AFD to another. It's disgusting there and equally unbecoming here. St★lwart111 00:15, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Stalwart111, wait... according to your interpretation; does this club passses WP:GNG? - Hatchens (talk) 00:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Yes. I said so above, as have others. St★lwart111 00:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Stalwart111, I surrendered! Thank you. - Hatchens (talk) 00:52, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Yes. I said so above, as have others. St★lwart111 00:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Stalwart111, wait... according to your interpretation; does this club passses WP:GNG? - Hatchens (talk) 00:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- As I explained there, my argument is that WP:GNG should apply because WP:GNG is our baseline notability criteria. My argument is the same there. It doesn't matter if this club doesn't pass WP:NFOOTY, because it already passes WP:GNG. And it doesn't matter if that sporting team isn't considered a sporting team or doesn't pass WP:NCORP, because it already passes WP:GNG. It's pretty simply, really. As a side note, I'm pleased you've decided to let your personal attacks and bad faith ooze from one AFD to another. It's disgusting there and equally unbecoming here. St★lwart111 00:15, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as it fails WP:GNG - No credible/independent media citations as per WP:RS, Lack significant coverage WP:SIGCOV. Since it fails in GNG, lets assess it under WP:NFOOTY as an SNG - The club is not part of any national league (of India) or any professional league as per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Fully_professional_leagues. It fails to qualify under NFOOTY too. Note: When an entity fails to qualify under WP:GNG, the best alternative is find an appropriate WP:SNG or WikiProject guidelines for the assessment - not vice versa. However, there is a possibility for this club to have a Wikipedia page (in the near future)- under the WP:NFOOTY as soon as they qualify for I-League 1 or any national leagues. -Hatchens (talk) 16:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- To the nominator; Indianfootball98 - please avoid renominating page which had just passed through an AfD. If you have any suggestions or something you would like to discuss within 6 months of keep, then please follow the WP:DRV route, thats the correct venue. Closing admin should take note on this too. - Hatchens (talk) 16:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- Noted down the point since this AFD. Indianfootball98 (talk) 14:11, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- And the closing admin should take note of the obviously pointy nature of Hatchens' !vote here. St★lwart111 00:18, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- To the nominator; Indianfootball98 - please avoid renominating page which had just passed through an AfD. If you have any suggestions or something you would like to discuss within 6 months of keep, then please follow the WP:DRV route, thats the correct venue. Closing admin should take note on this too. - Hatchens (talk) 16:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:10, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
SteveWillDoIt
- SteveWillDoIt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet WP:ENTERTAINER criteria. Yaakovaryeh (talk) 00:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Yaakovaryeh (talk) 00:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Subject lacks quality independent references. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:CREATIVE.4meter4 (talk) 00:45, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete references are basically primary and do not fulfil the principles given on WP:NYOUTUBE --Whiteguru (talk) 01:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Abdulhaseebatd (talk) 02:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:07, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Sami Atiya
- Sami Atiya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:SIGCOV. References are profiles and an appointment notice. UPE. scope_creepTalk 22:18, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Tentative keep. You are only talking about the sources in the article. Have you even checked to see what sources on this subject are available? 195.36.35.251 (talk) 07:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- WP:SPA account. Just came in this morning. scope_creepTalk 07:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- Weak delete. I'm an inclusionist, and would like us to have articles for everyone, but until then we don't need a bias towards paid bios for random businessmen. – SJ + 03:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 06:15, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV]. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:10, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 11:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Ryan Avery (speaker)
- Ryan Avery (speaker) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Promotional article about a non-notable businessperson. Declined a couple of times in AfC; no changes since the most recent decline, the article creator decided to move it into articlespace. The only claim to notability is winning the Toastmasters International championship of public speaking in 2012, but since that has not resulted in any significant coverage in independent sources, the person still doesn't meet WP:BASIC. A Guinness World Record (or even several) is not a sign of notability unless there is significant independent coverage in reliable sources, and again, there isn't. bonadea contributions talk 10:18, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 10:18, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 10:18, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note also that the article's creator has disclosed their COI, which means that they shouldn't have moved the draft to mainspace, but now that it is here I think it is just as well to determine whether Avery is notable. I have cleaned up the article a bit to remove some promotional links and text. --bonadea contributions talk 10:35, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Sources used in the article lack independence and are therefore not considered reliable per our verifiability and notability standards. Article is largely self promotional. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 21:15, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. I agree that the tone is promotional. Neither the Toastmasters championship nor the Guinness world record automatically confer notability, and there does not appear to be significant independent coverage about the subject to support an article per WP:GNG. --Kinu t/c 07:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - paid-for spam. MER-C 18:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
El ultimo ke zierre
- El ultimo ke zierre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The band seem to have an extensive discography which is why I thought they would satisfy WP:NBAND, but during WP:BEFORE, I could find no WP:RS discussing their career in detail. I thought I'd bring it to AfD to see if there is anything I'm missing. – DarkGlow • 14:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 14:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 14:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 14:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 14:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment An extensive discography is not a sign of notability. Many underground punk/grindcore bands have lots of releases, but that doesn't make them notable since most of the time, nobody wrote a review of said albums; they are available in stores and on streaming media, they have some database entries, they can be downloaded from somewhere, you can buy the merch...however, none of those are reliable sites and they cannot be used in WP articles. So an extensive discography does not make a band/musician notable. On the case of this band, they don't seem very notable, but I might be wrong. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:02, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment reply Thanks for the clarification for anyone that's unsure, but I'm aware of that. I wouldn't be arguing for someone's notability in an AfD nomination lol, I was just stating that I expected them to pass NBAND with RS but they don't, hence the nom. – DarkGlow • 20:31, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment. The French language wikipedia article has several sources with inline citations that could possibly indicate that the band meets NBAND and/or GNG.4meter4 (talk) 20:30, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:10, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. I added the citations from the French language Wikipedia article mentioned by 4meter4. I think that notability is now demonstrated. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Looking at the references, the last one is routine coverage which could just as well be a press release (looks like it, although it is not identified as such); the one before is largely based on an interview; and the first one is also based on statements from the promoter of the launch of the groups ultimate album. So none of these are enough to meet GNG. It might be possible that this group got coverage from local off-line sources which could amount to actual GNG, but given that the band has released multiple albums in the past twenty years (so, yeah, right in the middle of the Internet era, in Spain, a European country...), it does not bode well that nothing convincing has so far been found. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - They've stuck it out for many years but it appears that they simply haven't received any reliable coverage. As the last voter said, the recently-added sources are a nice try but they're just minor promo announcements. Unless the sources are really deep in hardcopy books and newspapers, I can find no in-depth analytical articles on the band or reliable reviews of any of their albums. Otherwise they're only visible in the usual streaming and retail services. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:35, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom, for failing WP:NBAND. A discography, however extensive, doesn't meet any of the criteria listed. Ifnord (talk) 03:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. G12 copyvio per HighKing. Both the English and the original Italian articles were created in one hit rather than slowly evolving. Additiionally, this may well be a purely promotional creation. The product is for sale at the farinabono.ch website and the earliest version of the English article gives that as the Official Site. For the record, I was inclined to keep this had it not been for the copyvio, so there is no obstacle to its recreation as a properly written article. SpinningSpark 14:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Farina bona
- Farina bona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't meet WP:N. Possible ATD would be merge/redirect or redirect to Onsernone but I'm not sure it is significant enough to make the article. Boleyn (talk) 18:29, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:39, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:39, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:39, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Farina bona is recognized as a "Swiss culinary heritage": https://www.patrimoineculinaire.ch/Prodotti?text=Farina+B%C3%B3na&canton=&categorie=#455 --Hadi (talk) 18:29, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment. It seems to be a well known food that extends back into antiquity. In looking at google books I got a lot of hits with cookbook recipes using it (mainly in Italian and Swiss but also French and Russian), farina bona ice cream, medieval recipes, etc. Even Hippocrates mentioned it briefly. But I couldn't find any RS just talking about it directly as a product/ history. Only brief mentions. Not sure what to think.4meter4 (talk) 21:51, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:08, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep based (1) on the feeling that a lot of half-decent sources writing at least a bit on the subject adds up to the same sort of weight as two sources in depth (I know this is bad arithmetic); (2) on the sheer quantity of Google hits; and (3) on the text: the text refers to historical sources and testimonies, and is either a stupendously good bit of Original Research, or more likely, an article pieced together from decent sources which unfortunately the writer failed to cite. We should delete the incorrigibly non-notable, not the uncontroversial-probably-true-but-not-properly-cited; this latter should be tagged as needing references. Elemimele (talk) 21:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: Farina bona is a corn (maize) flour, so any use in the context of Hippocrates or before the 1500s is probably unrelated, and Swiss cuisine suggests corn might not have become a staple before the 1800s -- which is consistent with [45]. Happy with redirection and brief coverage as proposed. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 05:49, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - this was nominated for deletion less than 6 minutes after the nomination of another article. Both nominations used the automated Twinkle suite. The suggestion that the intervening 5 minutes was enough time to conduct WP:BEFORE for topic with a history "that extends back into antiquity", is laughable. So keep and close as out of process, or keep because it meets our inclusion criteria. St★lwart111 06:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete as per G12 WP:COPYVIO. This article was created in December 2009 and is based on this website's contents also in English language which predate this article. Everything in the article originates from that website and the timing suggests this article was created to promote that business. HighKing++ 13:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
- @HighKing: how do we know that the contents of that site predate the addition of our article? Note that the Italian is an almost verbatim copy of Italian Wikipedia's version as of 2008, while the web archives of the other page date to 2010 only, which means they could well have copied it-wiki. It would be good to know for sure, though. — Amakuru (talk) 16:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
- Amakuru good point but the 2008 Italian wiki page shows a link to this web site which is of the same name but ".ch" and which was in existence in 2007. Although the "Curiosita" page hasn't been archived from 2007, it existed and given the lack of updates to the website in general, my opinion is that this article is a clear copyvio. HighKing++ 13:26, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. No claim to notability and the years that keep passing by without a reference indicate to me that none are forthcoming. Ifnord (talk) 03:47, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 18:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Flash and Dash
- Flash and Dash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
It doesn't appear to meet WP:N. Last AfD was closed as no consensus - little participation but good points made. Boleyn (talk) 18:36, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:41, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:41, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:41, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. I couldn't find any RS on this topic. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 21:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:07, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:25, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. There's been plenty of time since the last AfD to provide a claim to notability, no evidence any exists. Ifnord (talk) 03:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. ✗plicit 00:24, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Green Acres, Delaware
- Green Acres, Delaware (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Run-of-the-mill subdivision fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG. Although the article is more than just a stub, it's sourced almost entirely to the neighborhood civic association with no significant independent coverage. The only newspaper results I'm finding are real estate listings and articles about the local swim team. –dlthewave ☎ 19:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 19:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 19:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: This wasn't hard to find: https://eu.delawareonline.com/story/life/home-garden/2014/03/19/green-acres-split-levels-reminiscent-of-frank-lloyd-wright-style/6611723/ tho the article in Architectural Forum in which the community is discussed doesn't seem to be on line, but is independent coverage. Djflem (talk) 19:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Seems to pass WP:GEOLAND between the sources in the article and Djflem's comment above.4meter4 (talk) 20:45, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:07, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Meets GEOLAND, has some architectural significance. Subdivisions are hit-or-miss but I think this one is notable. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 01:36, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Meets GEOLAND. Djflem (talk) 06:17, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: most of these geostubs are nothing beyond a GNIS entry, but this seems to be fairly fleshed out and has a number of actual sources talking about the history of the place. jp×g 20:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.