The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:28, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Monica Ruiz

Monica Ruiz (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Fails GNG and fails both criteria under WP:NACTOR. Furthermore, their most noteworthy contribution, the Peloton ad, is already covered in the Peloton article. Ew3234 ( talk) 21:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ew3234 ( talk) 21:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 21:32, 5 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Redirect: Add a redirect back to " Peloton (exercise equipment company)#The Gift That Gives Back ad controversy". vistadan 22:31, 5 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:51, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 17:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 08:18, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom and above fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Namkongville ( talk) 15:03, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Merge into Peloton (exercise equipment company)#The Gift That Gives Back ad controversy. I think there are enough refs there to keep this content, but maybe not enough for an article of its own. Would consider keeping if she were known for more than the Peloton ad. Royal Autumn Crest ( talk) 17:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to the section in the Peloton article. I am not seeing a WP:NACTOR pass on an article in which most acting roles have names like "Latin Girl" or "Hot Woman". Things like "In 2020, Ruiz starred in The Rookie as Alyce Scanlin" seem to hold promise, but neither Ruiz nor Scanlin seem to be mentioned in the article for that show at all. Perhaps some time in the future, she will be an extremely famous actor and people will laugh at the AfD comment I'm writing here, but for now, I would recommend a merge. jp× g 04:25, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. What the actress is known for is already detailed on Peloton's page, so there is no need to redirect. Heartmusic678 ( talk) 17:19, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Faith Assembly

Faith Assembly (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

This was a 2012 no consensus, but in the intervening nine years there is no further evidence via BEFORE to support passage of WP:MUSIC or GNG. Star Mississippi 14:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 14:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 14:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment - there are a couple of problems here: 1. The band might meet the requirements of WP:GNG and given the sheer quantity of music they have produced (some under A Different Drum) you would think there would be some coverage out there. The issue is that the name of the band makes searching for such sources almost impossible. Every search is jam-packed with references to churches and church groups, and adding words like "band" to the search parameters obviously doesn't do much to help that. 2. We still have the issue of Quasihuman's assertion in the final days of the last AFD; that the band passes WP:BAND because it meets specific criteria. I think we would need some well-thought-through analysis of why that isn't the case before we can dismiss it. St★lwart ¹¹¹ 00:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply

I think both have contributed to the lack of contributions here. So I might ping Star Mississippi just in case they had anything to add. St★lwart ¹¹¹ 00:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Reply apologies for the delay @ Stalwart111:, I was offline for a few days. I did see Quasihuman's assertion, but without reliable sourcing, I'm not sure A Different Drum meets important indie label - it's not AfD worthy but there are some significant questions remaining that even with some search magic ala what Doomsdayer520 alluded to, I can't find the sourcing to establish notability. Unfortunately with a prior AfD I forsee this ending up as a no consensus, because so far there isn't one. August vacation time doesn't help either unfortunately. Star Mississippi 22:39, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply

No need to apologise; I'm in Australia and in lock-down at a loose end, so have more time to contribute. I appreciate your reply. I agree with your assessment of search results, and those of doomsdayer520. And while I understand the point made in the last AfD, without reliable sources to confirm that assertion, we don't really have a choice but to dismiss it. We certainly can't consider it in a way that supersedes basic requirements like WP:GNG so it becomes a moot point. St★lwart ¹¹¹ 23:17, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Stay safe! That was me earlier in my return to active editing Star Mississippi 23:40, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete - As noted above there is some difficulty in searching for this band, but that can be alleviated with some more strategy like <"Faith Assembly" + "Mark Stacy">. But via that strategy I still can find nothing on this band beyond its own social media and the usual streaming and directory sites. With a lot of releases you'd think they would have some reliable notice out there, but it doesn't seem to have happened. Also, WP:NBAND requires multiple releases on important indie labels, which is open to interpretation but the band's lack of notice does does not sway that discussion in their favor either. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 14:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply

You mean "doesn't", right? As in, it doesn't help the band meet that guideline? I don't want to be pedantic but given the last discussion, clarity is important here. St★lwart ¹¹¹ 23:26, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

You're right, a minor typo. It has been fixed. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 14:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Perfect. St★lwart ¹¹¹ 23:17, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete - per Doomsdayer520's accurate assessment and my discussion above. St★lwart ¹¹¹ 23:17, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete: A difficulty in searching and having to incorporate search strategies should be a big red flag on notability especially on a BLP. -- Otr500 ( talk) 19:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Trying to look for sources independently verified Doomsdayer's assessment of potential sources. — CVValue ( talk) 20:23, 17 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. czar 05:29, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply

B2B CFO

B2B CFO (  | 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 WP:NCORP. The sources are all brief mentions. Even the Forbes "25 Small Giants" write-up is only three sentences. I admit I do not have access to the WSJ article ( "For Rent" Chief Financial Officer"), but AGFing that it's WP:SIGCOV, that would be 1 source, and NCORP requires more than 1 source. I've also searched Google web/news/books/scholar, and found only brief mentions in media, nothing in-depth and independent. Levivich 17:21, 5 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Levivich 17:21, 5 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Levivich 17:21, 5 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Levivich 17:21, 5 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Levivich 17:21, 5 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing ⁺⁺ 20:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. I read the WSJ article and it only gives B2BCFO a 2-sentence mention plus a caption with a B2BCFO employee; other than that, the article generally discusses CFOs for small businesses. Heartmusic678 ( talk) 17:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:40, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Doostang

Doostang (  | 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, all content by a series of SPAs. Little evidence of WP:CORPDEPTH, with one solidly RS article and the rest being about funding. (I cut a large section that was WP:BROCHURE.) A WP:BEFORE shows press releases and passing mentions. It's not really evident that this company has ever been notable. This article was deleted at AFD previously, then recreated. David Gerard ( talk) 21:36, 5 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard ( talk) 21:36, 5 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. David Gerard ( talk) 21:36, 5 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. David Gerard ( talk) 21:36, 5 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete Non-notable company. TH1980 ( talk) 01:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails WP:NCORP, no indepth coverage available. Namkongville ( talk) 15:04, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. ✗ plicit 23:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Carlo Bonomi

Carlo Bonomi (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

I saw this on the AFD list, but there is not an AFD on the page itself, so resubmitting. The original nominator was found to be sockpuppet, but his comments are worth a look "The article only contains three reliable sources of a non-notable voice actor. There's also a rumor speculating that says he died in September 2019, unfortunately there isn't enough relatable sources out there to confirmed if he really passed away or not." Peter303x ( talk) 21:45, 5 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Peter303x ( talk) 21:45, 5 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Peter303x ( talk) 21:45, 5 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Peter303x ( talk) 21:45, 5 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:51, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep -- three reliable references seems entirely sufficient to me. And I don't think the (original) nominator unilateral assertion of non-notable is helpful to include, as both that's what we're adjudicating here, and it's clearly not an open and shut case, given that there are articles for him on a variety of other language wikis. matt91486 ( talk) 14:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep I updated the article adding some contents coming from a recent book published by The History Press. Clearly a notable voice actor also at international level, as a rare case of a cartoon's dubber who invented his own's language (twice) and wasn't needed to be re-dubbed in any of the over 150 countries in which La Linea and Pingu were broadcast. His use of grammelot and his work method are also analyzed in The Routledge Companion to Commedia Dell'Arte (pp.157-158) which introduces him this way "anyone wishing to hear true grammelot in international action can do no better than listen to Pingu as voiced by Carlo Bonomi". 151.74.119.128 ( talk) 06:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep Sources already on the page pass WP:BASIC. Bonomi is notable because he passes WP:CREATIVE for Gramelot/his work as Pingu [1]. Heartmusic678 ( talk) 18:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. ✗ plicit 00:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Scott's Law

Scott's Law (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Local law in one particular state-there are similar traffic laws in many others. NOT NEWS DGG ( talk ) 22:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Oppose News citations alone show that this article is notable. Additionally, this law is eponymous, and notable due to its backstory and notoriety among Illinoisans; the words "Scott's Law" are printed on highway signage. While there are similar laws, referenced in the article and visible at move-over law, this law is specific in its scope and application. This law cannot be easily lumped together with other laws, nationally or internationally, that cover similar material. JustinMal1 ( talk) 23:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC) reply

you've made a good case for a redirect to move-over law. DGG ( talk ) 20:33, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• I guess I'm misunderstanding your argument as to why this should be deleted then. Local law, despite being local, is still relevant to the scope of Wikipedia. The transclusion list of the infobox template used on this page should be enough to prove that. JustinMal1 ( talk) 20:42, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply

The list of transclusions seems to be instances of special or pioneering or otherwise distinctive legilation, not one which is essential the same as in every state, except for having a special name and a slightly wider scope. DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• "Pioneering" and "distinctive" are fairly vague words. As far as I can tell, other items on this transclusion list are similar in style to Scott's Law; eponymous pieces of legislation that bear similarity to extant law passed after a tragedy. For example, the first item on the list, Shannon's law (Arizona) is essentially a law prohibiting the reckless discharge of a firearm. Such laws exist across the country, but lack the eponym and the story. JustinMal1 ( talk) 01:48, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Exactly. So this is inordinate significance for a particular law. The PR considerations leading to the name, and the story behind it, are not encyclopedic material. DGG ( talk ) 08:21, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Meets WP:GNG. I don't think WP:NOTNEWS applies here, as it seems the sources provide evidence of "enduring notability". Suriname0 ( talk) 17:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• 'Keep per WP:SIGCOV. I hate naming laws after victims (and if I ever die in some horrible crime or accident, please, folks, no legacy laws). However, this one appears to be notable. Bearian ( talk) 20:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Verve Therapeutics

Verve Therapeutics (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

not yet notable no product, everything here is pr/ DGG ( talk ) 22:05, 5 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:07, 5 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:07, 5 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment: There are other biotechnology companies with articles, such as CRISPR Therapeutics, who do not have approved drugs, but whose notability is inferred by sources. Uhooep ( talk) 10:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

CRISPR has several drugs in clinical trials, Verve has apparently not even reached that point. DGG ( talk ) 20:32, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete - per WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIGCOV. Just as with natural persons, a Legal person can use up its 15 minutes of fame, which is not enough for WP:GNG. Bearian ( talk) 20:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability, WP:TOOSOON probably, fails WP:NCORP. HighKing ⁺⁺ 21:02, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. czar 05:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Brad Nichol

Brad Nichol (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG Boleyn ( talk) 21:19, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 ( talk) 10:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 ( talk) 10:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 ( talk) 10:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 ( talk) 10:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 ( talk) 10:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 ( talk) 10:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. -- SilverTiger12 ( talk) 23:09, 17 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Shahriar Shahirzadeh

Shahriar Shahirzadeh (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

COI article of a Non notable entrepreneur who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them thus do not satisfy WP:GNG. i do not also see any prominent award won by the entrepreneur thus an WP:ANYBIO fail also. Furthermore the sources used in the article are all primary sources. A before search shows nothing concrete. Celestina007 ( talk) 22:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 22:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 22:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 22:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete - fails to meet GNG based on my searches of English language sources. Watchlisting this in case new sources are identified. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 12:02, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete - searching "شهریار شهیر زاده" turned up almost nothing so no indication of WP:GNG Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:26, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete can't pass GNG. ZEP55 ( talk) 16:13, 17 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete hitting more WP:UPE bells than GNG. Star Mississippi 17:53, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete speedy delete Mardetanha ( talk) 14:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep with no consensus to merge. Daniel ( talk) 07:14, 20 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Hitchens's razor

Hitchens's razor (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

The concept may not be notable on its own, outside the article for Christopher Hitchens himself, where it should be moved to. As the article states, this is a repetition of Occam's razor. There are several books that use the words "Hitchens' Razor", but the concept is not different enough from other philosophical concepts to warrant its own page, and the very few sources that are not Hitchens himself merely mention that this is a thing that Hitchens likes to say and they do not establish notability. This simply does not meet the significant coverage guideline of Wikipedia:Notability. MarshallKe ( talk) 20:25, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Logic-related deletion discussions. MarshallKe ( talk) 20:25, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. MarshallKe ( talk) 20:25, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. MarshallKe ( talk) 20:25, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Disagree that this is a pure repetition of Occam's razor. Occam's razor does not, in any way, discuss the "burden of proof" in relation to who is arguing for a claim, that is purely Hitchens' invention, and why this razor is named after him. With a quick google search, I was able to find several other RSes (mostly scholarly) which mention/discuss this concept independent of the references in the article and even largely indpendent of Hitchens himself: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. The Hindu, for example, discusses it in depth and helps establish WP:GNG. All these other uses of it independent of Hitchens as a person demonstrate it has independent notability as a turn-of-phrase and philosophical argument.-- Shibbolethink ^{( ♔ ♕)} 22:19, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: how is that principle Hitchens' invention if it was well-established in Ancient Roman law and classical philosophy? Ain92 ( talk) 12:29, 17 August 2021 (UTC) reply

  It's not Hitchens' invention, but like a lot of things, somebody popularized an ancient concept and it got named after themselves. Hitchens really doesn't deserve to even be mentioned in this article, but there's not much Wikipedia can really do about that, I don't think. MarshallKe ( talk) 13:44, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply

  Not everything that's said in Latin is actually Roman. This one appears to be one of the maxims in Bouvier's Law Dictionary of 1856. If you have an earlier source, i'm quite curious. ^[1]. Kleuske ( talk)

  • It is attributed to Julius Paulus Prudentissimus who flourished during the Severan dynasty in the Digest of the 6th-century Corpus Juris Civilis, see those articles for details. Ain92 ( talk) 16:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Thanks. Kleuske ( talk) 18:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• I expressed a concern some time ago (part of the discussion at Talk:Hitchens's razor/Archive 1#Notability and Neologism Issues) that the term Hitchens's razor might have been coined on Wikipedia. It now appears to have been used more widely though, perhaps by people who'd read this article, and I'm not sure there's anything we can do to correct that circular referencing issue now. Cordless Larry ( talk) 07:22, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Given Shibbolethink's newfound sources, I tend to concur with keeping the article. However I will let the discussion run its course rather than revoking the AfD. MarshallKe ( talk) 12:28, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Redirect or Merge back to parent article. Artw ( talk) 15:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep well sourced and notable. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 21:08, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Shibbolethink. If keep is not the consensus, then merge into Occam's Razor. Do not redirect or delete. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 06:23, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Merge back to parent article. There does not seem to be sufficient content to justify a stand alone article and there is not likely to be. Richard-of-Earth ( talk) 04:29, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Keep given the references in the article and the references that Shibbolethink has found which easily establish it has met the GNG. GliderMaven ( talk) 21:35, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Clearly different from Occam's Razor - as the article says, there are echoes of Occam, but the substantive requirement of evidence is different. RomanSpa ( talk) 22:42, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep Came here via noms user page, where they state that figuring out what to do about Hitchen's razor is one of their aims. We should keep it - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 12:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply

  Just so we're on the same page, one of my aims is to bring this article up to WP standards if possible, and not to "do something" about the principle itself, which would 1) be Wikipedia:Advocacy and against the rules, and 2) strange considering I'm an atheist who generally likes the principle being discussed. MarshallKe ( talk) 14:09, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Stop wasting our time. Also, what on earth do your beliefs have to do with this? - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 14:16, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Let me put a different proposal: merge into Burden of proof (philosophy). This is much closer to the topic of the discussed article, a section there would do the job neatly. A mention in Occam's razor is also appropriate. Ain92 ( talk) 16:44, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Strong merge to Christopher Hitchens or some other suitable target. I'm not convinced it meets GNG unless there are sources that pre-date the Wikipedia article (2012). The recent usage linked to above looks like WP:Citogenesis to me. Searching Google for "Hitchens's Razor" (or variations) prior to 2012 brings like almost no results and certainly none that are RS. [10]. If you look at the first creation of the article [11], the only reference supporting the existence of this is Hitchens's own 2007 book. These are tell-tale signs of citogenesis. We should fix this error before it gets worse. Levivich 17:22, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Searching Google books yields plenty of popular sources mentioning the term "Hitchens's razor" [12], but it's indeed telling that one of those sources cites Wikipedia, and that restricting the search to before November 2012 (when our article was created) yields nothing [13]. Now the adage itself does indeed occur in Hitchens 2007, but he never calls it a razor himself (he repeatedly refers to Occam's razor, but not with reference to his own adage). The term does not seem to occur in any pre-2012 source (I've also checked all the sources in the first version of our article), and this indeed looks like a very successful case of citogenesis ( Nederlandse Leeuw should be able to tell us: is my impression correct that you chose "Hitchens' razor" as an appropriate title because Hitchens liked to refer to Occam's razor and because this seems to be a razor all of his own?). Unless either a pre-2012 source can be found, or significant coverage in post-2012 scholarly sources in relevant fields (e.g., philosophy, theology, discourse analysis, etc.), we should probably stop referring to the adage as "Hitchens's razor". But if the adage has no name of its own, it's probably better to merge and redirect to Christopher Hitchens. If the term sticks despite that, and starts to pop up in the scholarly literature (for a citogenesis case like this, The Hindu won't do, and neither will an obscure paper on Bipolar disorder), it can always be recreated in the future. ☿  Apaugasma ( talk  ☉) 02:19, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply

  Hi Apaugasma. To answer your question: no, as far as I know, Hitchens never referred to this phrase as 'Hitchens' razor' (or 'Hitchens's razor'); in fact, he seems not to have invoked the term 'razor' at all, let alone to have referred to Ockham when using it (first in 2003, later in God Is Not Great in 2007). The term 'Hitchens's razor' seems to have been coined by his commentators in 2010, and that's what I based this article on. Note that there are several philosophical razors besides Ockham's razor and Hitchens's razor, such as Hanlon's razor and Alder's razor. The fact that something is called a 'razor' and seems similar to Ockham's razor doesn't mean it's just the same thing under a different name; e.g. there is a clear difference between Ockham's razor and Hanlon's razor. Furthermore, when I translated this page to Dutch as Hitchens' scheermes, I got into a fierce discussion with a Dutch Wikipedian who said that Hitchens didn't invent this razor himself, but merely popularised the Latin scholastic axiom Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur that has been attested since at least the 19th century. Consequently, the Dutch version of this page is titled nl:Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur. It's not clear exactly what Latin phrase Ockham used for his razor, but it's very different from 'Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur', most notably because Ockham urges a person to be self-critical and not use more assumptions than necessary, while the latter urges person B to dismiss the baseless assumptions of person A. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 10:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply

  Renaming the article may be an option to consider IMHO. The phrase you quote is attested in GB in exactly the same form in a late 17th-century (printed in 1686) work of an Italian Capuchin friar named Giovenale d'Anagni. BTW, Augustine canon Gabriele Pennotto wrote half a century earlier: Hoc enim gratis asseritur, et gratis negatur, loquendo de applicatione ad actus liberos ordinis naturalis. (I tried to google-translate it but failed, not clear for me if the sense is the same). Ain92 ( talk) 13:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply

  Interesting. I am afraid that we are straying into original research territory here, we really need secondary sources to confirm this, but it looks like you are right. According to my best Classical Latin, Pennotto wrote 'Indeed, this can be freely asserted, and freely ignored/dismissed/denied, (when) speaking about the application [ablativus absolutus] of the order of nature [genetivus singular] to free actions [accusativus plural].' (In post-Classical Latin, liberos could also mean 'children', but it's not the relevant part of the sentence). The earliest reference the Dutch Wikipedian I could find was in The Classical Journal, Vol. 40 (1829), p. 312, which is arguably a secondary source to explain what the phrase means and in which situations it is used, but a primary source to establish its earliest attested use in the 19th century. (PS: I'm surprised to see that I already referred to The Classical Journal 1829 when I first created this page in November 2012; I don't know how that happened, but I probably got it from the entry at Wikiquote's Latin proverbs).
  

  In any case, I am open also to renaming, but then we do need to establish a consensus here on what the title should be. I reached a consensus with that Dutch Wikipedian on Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur, and so I renamed it there, but English Wikipedia needs to figure out its own position. E.g. I see that you proposed Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat ('The burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who denies') as another alternative. It has some merit, although I think it's better to link that principle with Richard Dawkins' February 2002 quote (23:15): "The onus is on you to say why, the onus is not on the rest of us to say why not." Both quotes make the observation/claim that the asserter has the burden of proof, not the critic, while Hitchens's razor and Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur observes/claims that the critic can dismiss the assertion if the asserter does not meet the burden of proof. There is a slight difference between the two, and I would say that Ei incumbit/Dawkins 2002 is the first step and Hitchens's razor/Quod gratis is the second step in the same thought process. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 14:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply

  Hey Nederlandse Leeuw, thanks for coming here to comment! You seem to have misunderstood my query: what I wanted to know is whether you coined the term "Hitchens's razor" back in 2012 when you created the article, or whether it was already in use in the secondary literature, and if the latter, where? You mention commentators from 2010, but there's no 2010 source in the article as you wrote it in 2012. It would be very helpful if you could locate that 2010 source for us, since that would establish that we're not dealing with a case of wp:citogenesis here. If not, then that's perfectly okay too, but then we probably need to deal with it as citogenesis and stop using the term "Hitchens's razor" at all for a while. Since that would be a pity (the term actually is a good one to describe the adage), I'd much prefer if you could find the 2010 source you were drawing on back in 2012. Thanks, ☿  Apaugasma ( talk  ☉) 15:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply

  Hi Apaugasma, ah, sorry for the misunderstanding. No, I didn't coin the term myself; it was already in circulation on the Internet by November 2012. At the time, I thought Hitchens first used the phrase 'What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence' in his 20 October 2003 Slate article 'Mommie Dearest', but strangely it does not appear to be there in its current form (and Slate claims this is 'Hitchens’ original essay'). In September 2014, when I translated the Wikipedia page to Dutch, I was challenged by that Dutch Wikipedian, and set out to find the actual coinage of the term as well as Hitchens's first use of the phrase. The oldest usage of the term can be found on a personal blog by Rixaeton on 1 December 2010, named "Hitchens' Razor". (Interestingly, Rixaeton also claimed that 'This phrase is found in a Christopher Hitchens Slate article on Mother Teresa.' with an URL to the same 20 October 2003 Slate article 'Mommie Dearest'. For some strange reason, both Rixaeton in 2010 and I in 2012 believed the phrase could be found there, even though it's not there now). This and especially the follow-up post of 2 January 2012 named "Correcting Hitchens' Razor to Hitchens's Razor" seem to strongly indicate that Rixaeton coined the term 'Hitchens' razor', and he also popularised the correction 'Hitchens's razor' with the extra s. Evolutionary biologist and atheist activist Jerry Coyne also attributed the coinage to Rixaeton in this 25 December 2011 blog post "Readers’ tributes to Hitchens: The final day, with music.", and argued that the term 'Hitchens’ Razor' should be popularised: 'And finally, reader Rixaeton coins a new phrase (introduced on his website), which I think we should all adopt and use. (...) I have conducted extensive research (ie: Googled for it) and have not found the phrase used anywhere as an official razor, but would it be nice if it came to be?'. The oldest usage of the phrase itself by Hitchens in writing that can still be verified today is in his 2007 book God Is Not Great, page 150; both you and Levivich have confirmed that. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 16:47, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply

  Wow, thanks for that; this is extremely helpful. I don't think that these two blogs would have met WP:GNG at the time (they're either not authoritative or not independent enough), and I cannot help but feel that we inadvertently turned Coyne's wish for it to become an 'official razor' into reality. Should we correct that mistake by avoiding its use now? I tend to think we should at least try that for a while and see whether its use persists without us using the term. If we do decide to keep on using the term, however, I think we should also keep the article as is, and add to it the info on its coinage which you've just given us above. ☿  Apaugasma ( talk  ☉) 18:46, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep - it's not the same as Occam's, and is notable by way of coverage. In a meta way, it's actually a useful razor for use at AFD. Bearian ( talk) 20:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Sara Cummings

Sara Cummings (  | 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 fictional character, any content of importance can be summarized on the show's page. Unsourced and been in CAT:NN since 2015. Seacactus 13 ( talk) 20:10, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 20:20, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:12, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete - I found what seems to be a passing mention in the book Her Stories: Daytime Soap Opera and US Television History, but nothing of substance to suggest that the character is a suitable subject for a stand-alone article. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 22:33, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete Wikipedia is not a Sunset Beach fan Wiki. TH1980 ( talk) 01:24, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete. No evidence of stand-alone notability.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:47, 17 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Puerto Rican Football Federation Preparatory Tournament

Puerto Rican Football Federation Preparatory Tournament (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

One-off friendly/warmup tournament with no evidence of notability. Sources provided are a very brief roundup of the results from the Puerto Rican FA's own website and a very brief announcement that Bayamón won the tournament from the town's own website. DDG search mostly gave us the same coverage and then mentions of tournaments of the same name for other sports, such as basketball. Also barely anything in Google News.

WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSEVENT do not appear to be met. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:18, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:19, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:19, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:19, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:20, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 20:25, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete fails WP:GNG, pre-season tournament don't tend to be notable (with a few specific exceptions). Joseph 2302 ( talk) 07:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy delete, no assertion of notability. Geschichte ( talk) 08:16, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Bravos Knights FC

Bravos Knights FC (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

I can't find anything about this club other than some social media posts, YouTube videos and coverage on Socialiga's own website. According to the league's website, this is a casual amateur league. Playing in such a league does not indicate notability and, as far as I can see, they are not eligible for the national cup as they are not part of the league system. More importantly, I found no evidence of a WP:GNG pass. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:31, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:32, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:32, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:33, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom, no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 16:43, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete: non notable team JW 1961 ^Talk 18:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Bol3ro

Bol3ro (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Article seemingly written by the subject; created by user who has made 0 edits outside of this page in the article namespace, namely Cubing98 ( talk · contribs). Contains one non-primary, independent source; not enough to support notability. Orcaguy | Write me | Mon œuvre 16:31, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Orcaguy | Write me | Mon œuvre 16:31, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Orcaguy | Write me | Mon œuvre 16:31, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Orcaguy | Write me | Mon œuvre 16:31, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 16:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply

2019–20 Bayamón FC season

2019–20 Bayamón FC season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Amateur season with no indication of notability - WP:GNG concern. Tagged as a notability concern in 2019 - creator removed this without addressing the issue. I've made an honest attempt to see if I could find at least some decent match reports from independent sources; for the game against Caguas I found Soccerway and BeSoccer and barely anything else. Very weak coverage. I then looked to see if the 2-2 draw with GPS had good coverage but found only 777score (blacklisted site) and Soccerway, which didn't even contain squad lists let alone any worthwhile prose coverage. We do have results listings on RSSSF but this is not WP:SIGCOV either.

The same creator has created articles on all of their other recent seasons but I haven't assessed those for GNG just yet. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:16, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:16, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:18, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom, no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 16:43, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete fails WP:GNG. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 07:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Nesting (international relations)

Nesting (international relations) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

While I don't dispute that the concept may have been used by some scholars, it is not a notable concept in International Relations scholarship. The concept is so obscure that I'm not sure it's even used in any of the main articles for theories related to the concept. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 14:56, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:08, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Furthermore, the page was created by a sockpuppet. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 15:52, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Well it certainly looks as if this is non-notable and should be deleted; the 4 sources seem to be minor passing mentions, and two of them are supplied without even a page number. Not clear what the sock was up to here. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 19:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Cobra (G.I. Joe)#Factions. History is available if there is any useful information to merge. RL0919 ( talk) 16:16, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Iron Grenadiers

Iron Grenadiers (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Zero real-world notability. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep or merge with the factions section of Cobra. Most of it's members have their bios placed in the List of Cobra characters page in light of a merge. -- Rtkat3 ( talk) 20:42, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Redirect or merge, no evidence of notability outside the fictional world they are from (all references are to the in-universe comic books or guides). WP:FANCRUFT. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:34, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Cobra (G.I. Joe)#Factions where they are already listed - There is not a single non-primary source being used, and the information here is almost entirely in-universe plot information. Searching brings up nothing but trivial mentions, with no significant coverage. It would serve as a useful redirect, though, to the main article on Cobra where they are already listed as a sub-group. Rorshacma ( talk) 17:53, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep based on addition of enough reliable sources to show notability. RL0919 ( talk) 03:11, 20 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Replica 1

Replica 1 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Procedural nomination on behalf of an IP editor. Their rationale is

I do not think that the sources currently in this article demonstrate that the subject passes WP:GNG, and a WP:BEFORE search failed to turn up anything better. The sources currently in the article consist of a link to an apple 1 owners club website which seems to be partially written by the person who made the kit, The website of the company that makes the kit, the website of the assembly language programming environment that runs on the kit, and the store that currently sells the kit. I think that the best potential source in the article is the Computerworld piece currently listed as an external link, But I am unconvinced that a pictorial build guide is the kind of coverage we would be looking for when writing an article, and it's a dead link - the images are no longer available. A search turns up a few passing mentions in articles to the effect of "The original apple 1 is so expensive that people are making replicas now", but no substantial coverage. 192.76.8.91 ( talk)

Reyk _YO! 13:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 ( talk) 15:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 ( talk) 15:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 ( talk) 15:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Badly written article about a piece of tech that does not clearly show its notability. Ping me if better sources are found. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 06:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Looking at the book in the "Further Reading" section, it does mention the "Replica I" throughout the book, in the context of using its circuit board to create a replica of the Apple I. The issue is that these mentions, while extensive, do not focus on the replica, but on the creation of a replica, which leaves me slightly conflicted as to whether this contributes to GNG or not. The rest of the sources, however, aren't useful, and a search turns up nothing - as such, I feel relatively safe !voting delete. BilledMammal ( talk) 08:33, 5 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Redirect Apple I#Clones and replicas looks like an ideal redirect target as the article subject is already mentioned there with references. Redirects are cheap and the artcle subject is of borderline (at best) notability anyway. Pavlor ( talk) 09:26, 5 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Weak keep I browsed sources in the article: computerworld looks fine, I don´t have access to the two books and can´t judge that thesis (?) by Oskar Andrzej Stepien. The rest of references is user generated or primary content. I give benefit of doubt and think the article subject just about passes GNG. Pavlor ( talk) 08:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Merge/Redirect to Apple I#Clones and replicas which is the obvious target. Reyk _YO! 09:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep: RS/SIGCOV present over a wide date range as evidenced by Owad's 2005 book, Gagnes 2009 review, and Tranter's 2018 review. The nomination is completed invalidated by the current version of the article. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 22:59, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep it's quite notable and well-sourced. Artem.G ( talk) 20:59, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep based on provided sources it is notable. Alice Jason ( talk) 05:17, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep per WP:HEY. Article has been improved significantly since nomination. NemesisAT ( talk) 15:06, 17 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 07:17, 20 August 2021 (UTC) reply

VIDA Select

VIDA Select (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Lacks notability. Ari T. Benchaim ( talk) 01:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 ( talk) 03:31, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 ( talk) 03:31, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 ( talk) 03:34, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep - present sources like the British GQ [14] and Inc. [15] pieces (among others) as well as articles in Quartz [16] and Refinery29 [17], mostly focusing on the interesting "ghostwriting" aspect of the site, suggest there is WP:SIGCOV. Aranya  (talk) 01:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC) (edited 03:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC)) reply

  Changing my vote to delete since I agree with HighKing's vote, which critically examines a good chunk of coverage presented in this AfD so far. Aranya  (talk) 04:40, 20 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep: Per WP:NCORP a company simply needs to have multiple WP:RS sources that focus on it to qualify. It appears that it does, with articles in Vice, Atlanta Magazine, Quartz, Esquire, ABC6 News, Refinery29, and more. It does not matter what the company does or how big it is. It's about independent & reliable press coverage to meet company notability) the problem with the article is that most of these are not sourced, and that it is poorly written and focused on company features, it should be marked for improvement, not deletion in light of these articles:

https://www.vice.com/en/article/9ke9kd/this-dating-service-will-flirt-for-you-but-it-will-cost-you

https://www.atlantamagazine.com/news-culture-articles/frustrated-with-online-dating-scott-valdez-decided-to-leave-flirting-to-an-expert-now-its-his-business/

https://qz.com/1247382/online-dating-is-so-awful-that-people-are-paying-virtual-dating-assistants-to-impersonate-them/

https://www.esquire.com/lifestyle/sex/a34931203/matchmaking-dating-services-online-apps/

https://6abc.com/vida-dating-service-app-apps/5450345/

https://www.refinery29.com/en-gb/2021/05/10473668/dating-app-help-messages-ghostwriters CosmicNotes ( talk) 23:05, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Sorry but no. By NCORP requirements, each individual reference used to establish notability (as opposed to other references which are used to support facts/info within the article) must contain in-depth information on the company and also contain "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND. HighKing ⁺⁺ 17:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations is WP:NCORP and applies a stricter interpretation of requirements than for other topics. In short, WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. All of the references mentioned by CosmicNotes above fail as follows:
  • Vice reference is a description of an upcoming TV segment but it relies entirely on information provided by the company including an interview with the founder. There is no information provided that didn't originate from the topic company or founder. No Independent Content, fails WP:ORGIND.
  • Atlanta magazine reference is based entirely on an interview with the founder, no Independent Content, fails ORGIND
  • QZ reference is written by an associate of the company (a "closer"), not Independent Content, fails ORGIND
  • Equire reference relies entirely on information provided by either the topic company or the CEO and even some people that used the service. There is no Independent Content, fails ORGIND
  • 6abc reference is basically an ad which relies entirely on information provided by the company/CEO/etc. No Independent Content, fails ORGIND
  • Refinery29 reference contains almost no information about the company and relies entirely on info provided by the CEO. There is no Independent Content, fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.

Not a single reference comes close to meeting the requirements for establishing notability, topic fails NCORP. HighKing ⁺⁺ 17:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. ✗ plicit 13:42, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply

77 (band)

77 (band) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Appears to be a non-notable band Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 13:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 13:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 13:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep. I've added multiple sources to this article. Google searches for "77 Armand Valeta" bring up plenty of articles, reviews, and some interviews, in both English and Spanish. NemesisAT ( talk) 19:38, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep A good amount of coverage online. Seacactus 13 ( talk) 20:20, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep as the article has been improved with the addition of multiple reliable sources references such as a staff written AllMusic bio and other coverage so that WP:GNG is passed. The tone of the article, however, is all wrong and so it needs a rewrite but that is not a reason for deletion, imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 00:23, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep Per above passes GNG. A good amount of coverage online. Namkongville ( talk) 15:08, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:02, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Emma Færge

Emma Færge (  | 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 as I couldn't find significant coverage on her. Fails WP:NFOOTY as she has only played in the non-fully professional Danish league, and hasn't represented Denmark internationally at senior level. Nehme ₁₄₉₉ 12:44, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme ₁₄₉₉ 12:44, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Nehme ₁₄₉₉ 12:44, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme ₁₄₉₉ 12:44, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Nehme ₁₄₉₉ 12:44, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nehme ₁₄₉₉ 12:44, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:57, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete - non-notable youth and later semi-pro footballer with limited coverage. In Google searches and a Danish search, the best sources are a routine pre-match article, which has a couple of quotes from her and a brief Q&A from the same website. I also found a squad list. Lack of coverage about her rather than just directly quoting from her and lack of any coverage at all outside the one website (Fodbold For Piger). Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:59, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:02, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Isabella Bryld Obaze

Isabella Bryld Obaze (  | 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 as I couldn't find significant coverage on her. Fails WP:NFOOTY as she has only played in the non-fully professional Danish league, and hasn't represented Denmark internationally at senior level. Nehme ₁₄₉₉ 12:44, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme ₁₄₉₉ 12:44, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Nehme ₁₄₉₉ 12:44, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme ₁₄₉₉ 12:44, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Nehme ₁₄₉₉ 12:44, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nehme ₁₄₉₉ 12:44, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:57, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Weak delete - has some decent coverage in JydskeVestkysten but, outside of that one newspaper, it appears that it's just the usual stats databases and passing mentions in match reports and squad listings. The two decent sources are inaccessible unless you pay but I'll link here and here in case anyone has access. Falls foul of WP:YOUNGATH due to the age of the player and due to not having sustained and significant coverage outside of the one regional newspaper. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:06, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep - based on additional coverage provided by Dougal below, I agree that this just about gets over the line on GNG. I was of the opinion that coverage from one local paper was not enough but also featuring in a series by a source as major as DR is enough. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep: Not sure how Spiderone could say there is "some decent coverage" that satisfies GNG but still vote delete. Seany91 ( talk) 15:09, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep - looks to me that there is some decent coverage that satisfies GNG. Nfitz ( talk) 02:51, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment - Obaze is one of the footballers featured in the DR series Fodboldtalenterne which would go to notability. Dougal18 ( talk) 11:04, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Weak Keep scrapes through WP:GNG subject is 18 years and actively playing and has a long career. She has played for Denmark's under 19.See little point deleting it and coverage will only continue. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 09:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:02, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Cecilie Fløe

Cecilie Fløe (  | 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 as I couldn't find significant coverage on her. Fails WP:NFOOTY as she has only played in the non-fully professional Danish league, and hasn't represented Denmark internationally at senior level. Nehme ₁₄₉₉ 12:42, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme ₁₄₉₉ 12:42, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Nehme ₁₄₉₉ 12:42, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme ₁₄₉₉ 12:42, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Nehme ₁₄₉₉ 12:42, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nehme ₁₄₉₉ 12:44, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:57, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete - I found a Soccerwire transfer announcement, which has a small amount of coverage on her but a Danish source search yielded nothing better. I'm not seeing quite enough for WP:GNG. The only source that looks to be close to significant is this one already in the article. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel ( talk) 07:19, 20 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Volens (NGO)

Volens (NGO) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

It exists, but I couldn't establish that it meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn ( talk) 12:20, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 12:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 12:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. WP is not a phonebook. -- SilverTiger12 ( talk) 00:05, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to NCT (group). czar 05:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Park Ji-sung (singer)

Park Ji-sung (singer) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Most of the references are primary or a mention. There is a paucity of information and notability about this person. That he is a member of a band does not inherit notability. Whiteguru ( talk) 11:49, 5 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Whiteguru ( talk) 11:49, 5 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Whiteguru ( talk) 11:49, 5 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 12:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to NCT (group). No signs of individual notability as a singer. Songwriting credits within the group and TV show appearances as promotional activities is pretty routine for idol groups. Evaders99 ( talk) 21:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to NCT (group). He does have some credits before the group in TV and film, but they appear to be minor roles that are not particularly notable in their own right, and are only ever described in fan-type articles about the group. Co-writing some songs for the group does not merit a separate article either. Most of his achievements are within the group and can be described at their article. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 14:59, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Consenus is that the article itself passes WP:GNG. Discussion around any future article title is not for AfD. Interested editors may choose to raise this at WP:RM or boldly move to the suggested title from this discussion. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{( talk • contribs)} 19:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Unionized cooperative

Unionized cooperative (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

I can't see this used as a clear term and concept. Lacks coverage and significance necessary to meet N. Boleyn ( talk) 12:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 14:03, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:17, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Move or Rename to Union co-op model per WP:COMMONNAME. The union co-op model passes WP:GNG due to sources from Nonprofit Quarterly and Coop News as well as scholarly articles from Labor Studies Journal, Organizational Imaginaries, University of Bristol among many others when searching Google Scholar. TipsyElephant ( talk) 19:29, 17 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Move to Union co-op model, given that it passes notability under that name. -- SilverTiger12 ( talk) 00:03, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep or move per the sources mentioned in TipsyElephant's comment. I don't know if moving the page is really necessary; "co-op" is a shortened form of "cooperative", and we already have pages titled with this word (like Worker cooperative), but if everyone wants to move it, I don't have a strong reason to object. jp× g 01:06, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 07:17, 20 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Julie Arliss

Julie Arliss (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Neither WP:PROF or WP:BIO appear to be met. The only coverage in RS are extremely brief mentions [18] [19] (this may not even be an RS in terms of establishing notability). The other references cited are primary sources and my own searches did not find anything else. SmartSE ( talk) 12:01, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SmartSE ( talk) 12:01, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 12:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 12:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep per WP:NAUTHOR. She, along with Peter Vardy (theologian), appear to have created a notable body of work. See reviews in Publishers' Weekly, International Journal of Frontier Missions, New Humanist, and Philosophy of Religion for AS Level. pburka ( talk) 17:16, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Pburka: Presumably you mean NAUTHOR #3?. Personally, I don't consider those reviews sufficient to demonstrate that the book is a "significant or well-known work". The New Humanist in fact suggests the exact opposite we can dispatch a final brutal kicking by judicious selection of a few choice quotes. We would have an enormous number of BLPs on our hands if every author reviewed in publishers weekly merited an article. SmartSE ( talk) 17:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

That's exactly what I mean, and a review is significant coverage whether it's positive or negative. Per WP:NBOOK#1, books are notable if they've been the subject of two or more reviews. This means several of her books are notable. We could create pages for each of the books, but since we already have pages for the authors I'm happy to just mention them there, instead. In my opinion, it's better to cover books on author pages rather than authors on book pages, as it avoids some BLP coatrack risks. pburka ( talk) 17:55, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• delete fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:NPROF. She is a secondary school teacher, her main impact stems from a co-authored book which does not qualify for WP:NAUTHOR. For her to qualify she would have to have multiple books that are independently reviewed and are her own work. Her GS profile shows very little citations / impact in the field meaning she fails WP:NPROF. The journal in which she publishes does not appear to be peer reviewed and is likely not a scholarly publication. -- hroest 18:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Little on GS, no pass of WP:Prof. Organizing conferences does not make a person notable. Xxanthippe ( talk) 22:37, 12 August 2021 (UTC). reply
• Delete, per SmartSE and hroest. JoelleJay ( talk) 23:44, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Weak delete. Obviously no pass of WP:PROF for a high school teacher with single-digit citations. The case for WP:AUTHOR is less clear-cut, with multiple reviews for what is essentially a single two-volume and two-author work (The Thinker's Guide to God / The Thinker's Guide to Evil) with a more-notable coauthor. If it were really two separate books, or had many more reviews, it might be enough for a weak keep from me, but as it is I think it falls a little short of the mark. The negativity of the reviews also makes it harder to argue that they are significant works. — David Eppstein ( talk) 00:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Weak delete In addition to the concerns raised by David Eppstein, the reviews mentioned above include a single-sentence mention (AS Level) and a journal with unclear editorial standards (Frontier Missions). For a WP:AUTHOR pass in the humanities, I'd look for a strong JSTOR presence, and there just isn't one. XOR'easter ( talk) 15:43, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 12:28, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply

KRK Ryden

KRK Ryden (  | 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:ARTIST or WP:GNG. Boleyn ( talk) 11:59, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 12:30, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 12:30, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. -- SilverTiger12 ( talk) 23:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. Evidence of substantive coverage in reliable sources has been shown, but the concerns over promotionalism are equally weighty. Vanamonde ( Talk) 09:44, 20 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Ananta Mandal

Ananta Mandal (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Autobiography. Self promotion. There are refs in the article but most of them are just site name e.g. www.sdws.org, others (2-3 refs) are interview (primary). No significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Didn't won any significant award or honor. Fails WP:GNG, WP:CREATIVE. আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk) 00:11, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:57, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:57, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• This biography fails almost every criteria of notability, COI, promotional style. Just another author who did not bother to read wikipedia rules before publishing. SalomonSalmon ( talk) 11:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Hmmm. The links in "further reading", especially the Times of India online puff-piece, might take him past GNG. Johnbod ( talk) 11:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

  I saw that but in my opinion that 2/3 coverage is not significant coverage. Newspaper/online news site always publish (promotional) news like that. The wiki article wholely written by the subject himself (ignoring all warning - see his talk page), there is good chance that those coverage are paid news or subject requested to write about him. আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk) 12:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. - Owais ^Talk 00:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete Self promotion. Coverage in the press is not serious criticism but absurdly incompetent. From the Times of India: "In all his works, he has used oil, acrylic and watercolour on canvas and paper". We're supposed to take that seriously? The Times of India, like many other indian media is a vehicle for advertising. They're not in the news business, they're in the advertising business. See https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/10/08/citizens-jain — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vexations ( talk • contribs)
• Strong Keep after viewing the image of his painting and reading the 2013 deletion attempt closed with the words "The result was keep. Sourcing concerns appear to have been remedied". Over eight years later the page still seems well sourced and obviously meets GNC and WP:ARTIST. I've edited the page for encyclopedic language and to remove promotional language. Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:55, 26 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• weakish delete; I have no idea why the last AfD closed with the conclusion it did, as the conclusion didn't reflect the comments that led to it. The article is a problem because it's basically a string of awards none of which are verified, a situation that cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely. Clearly Ananta Mandal is a successful professional artist of sufficient merit that the Times of India reports his exhibitions. But the requirements for notability are placed much higher than this: "The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." Although his works are good, they are not (yet) a significant monument; there is no statement that he's in the permanent collection of a notable gallery (let alone several), and I'm not sure the exhibitions in the India Times are major, significant ones (they look more like run-of-the-mill exhibitions). He's good, but he's not Monet. I think it's Too Soon.

Elemimele ( talk) 07:04, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Strong Keep - A notable artist, meets notability criteria notability criteria per sources available, see the media listed and press releases here. Also source examples that consist of significant coverage from reliable sources include:

• Multifarious impressions Time of India
• life in a metro The Pioneer
• Painting his love Indian Express
• Capturing landscapes on his canvas Times of India
• Tales of transition DNA
• Subject has several significant solo exhibition at Jehangir Art Gallery, Nehru Centre Art Gallery, Academy of Fine Arts, Kolkata "this all are reputed and major art gallery in India."
• Significant award section - Bombay Art Society, AIFACS, Academy of Fine Arts, Kolkata, Government College of Art & Craft, San Diego Watercolor Society, Western Federation of Watercolor Society, this all are reputed art fraternity. include: Rich canvases saturate watercolor event Houston Chronicle, Waiting for the Morning, by Ananta Mandal of India. "subject own first place award from Watercolor Art Society-Houston, US" — From the all of existing sources does not indicate that the subject is not notable. RedRabbit7 ( talk) 07:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete per User:Elemimele. ~ Yahya ( ✉) • 14:22, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Another relisting seems unneeded as consensus after two relistings was clear after RedRabbi7's well-researched comment. Randy Kryn ( talk) 14:30, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Randy Kryn, I couldn't disagree more. Almost none of the factual claims are supported by credible source and there serious issues with failed verification. For example, 2017: Award from Northwest Watercolor Society is problematic, because it doesn't mention which award (the International Open Exhibition isn't really an award), there is no independent coverage. https://www.nwws.org/portals/0/PDFs/MayJune2012HotPress.pdf says he won the $507 Winsor and Newton Excellence Award - $507 Value in 2012. https://www.nwws.org/portals/0/PDFs/JulyAugust2017HotPress.pdf says he won the H. Q. Johnson Award at the 2017 Annual International Open Exhibition. Those are not "notable awards". I would go so far as to say that they are very much NOT awards. These are competitions, where entrants must pay a fee to enter. The work is then offered for sale, and the organizer, like the NWWS receives a percentage of the sale price. Vexations ( talk) 15:35, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Aside from the awards, does Wikipedia accept the The Times of India as a reputable source? I haven't checked, but if it does then this artist has notability and should have made relisting for a third time (are three policy?) unnecessary. Randy Kryn ( talk) 16:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
      • See WP:TOI (no consensus and generally unreliable). Anyway, that is not significant coverage. Newspaper/online news site always publish (promotional) news like that. I also have serious concern about RedRabbi7, although my cu request was declined. Even though the person is from West Bengal, there is zero coverage about this person in Bengali language. The article ( bn:অনন্ত মন্ডল) on bnwiki was deleted also for notability. -- আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk) 17:00, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nomination — Al Riaz Uddin ( talk) 04:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy delete per G11/ G12 by Materialscientist. ( non-admin closure) -- MuZemike 11:30, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Sunny stephen

Sunny stephen (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Page previously deleted twice in AfC. Page has no references and is written like a fan page. As there are no references, WP:BASIC and WP:GNG cannot be established. Whiteguru ( talk) 08:00, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Whiteguru ( talk) 08:00, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Whiteguru ( talk) 08:00, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Whiteguru ( talk) 08:00, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete per G11, G12 – this is just the guy's personal website [20]. AngryHarpy‍ ^talk 08:04, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Request Procedural Close I did a non-admin closure as the article in question was already speedy deleted. However, I really messed up and missed adding a template at the bottom I think; I reverted my edits, including the closure. Curbon7 ( talk) 09:01, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Megadeth per WP:NOTDICT. The keep !vote is credible although somewhat moot as the page history is preserved in the outcome of a redirect. If there is future substance and notability beyond a definition, the article can always be recreated and expanded. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{( talk • contribs)} 18:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Megadeath

Megadeath (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Obscure (hypothetical) term/word is non-notable. Possibly redirect to Nuclear Holocaust or just relax to some Megadeth greatest hits. KidAd • SPEAK 07:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Redirect: This article is speculative about the term megadeath, and whilst it links to "megadeath". Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.). Oxford University Press. (Subscription or participating institution membership required.), as per nom, it has nothing notable to offer. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 08:34, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Megadeth as a reasonable misspelling. Fails WP:NOTDICT. Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 12:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Megadeth. Wikipedia isn’t a dictionary and there’s no need to make a disambig page for such an obscure term. When I saw this in the AfD listing I was initially confused why the Megadeth article was seemingly up for deletion and hadn’t been speedy kept! Dronebogus ( talk) 05:37, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep. None of the proposed changes are better than the current article at explaining what the term is and where it comes from. -- Dystopos ( talk) 19:48, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • The article can be used as raw material to improve the barebones Wiktionary entry, as converting it into a redirect won’t lose the original text since it will be in the page history. The problem is that the article doesn’t belong on Wikipedia since the only information it provides is a definition, a usage history, what is basically a padded-out quotation example, and an unsourced section on the even more obscure derivative term “gigadeath”—- in other words, it’s basically just a dictionary definition, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Dronebogus ( talk) 07:47, 17 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    • That's fine and I hope some Wiktionary editor is mindful to preserve the value from this article. I would point out that there ought to be some claim to notability in that the metal band took its name from the pre-existing concept rather than the term being derived somehow from the name of an influential metal band. -- Dystopos ( talk) 14:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was deleted as G5. (non-admin closure) —   HELLKNOWZ   ▎ TALK 09:24, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Sarmad Ali

Sarmad Ali (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

BLP of a non notable civil servant. Mccapra ( talk) 05:17, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mccapra ( talk) 05:17, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Mccapra ( talk) 05:17, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I can't find references to establish notability. Doing very well on a national examination (18th in the country) does not establish notability. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 11:35, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete – I'm not finding any WP:SIGCOV of this Sarmad Ali, as opposed to a homonymous newspaper executive. The former seems to have attracted little notice. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 03:10, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 08:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Coral Content Distribution Network

Coral Content Distribution Network (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Despite having run for several years, several years ago there is not a single claim to notability. All references are primary. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:12, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete - I'm honestly surprised that there isn't better sourcing for this, as it was reasonably popular when it was active (e.g. as a way to avoid 'hugging sites to death' or to bypass geo-restrictions). However, (popular or interesting) !== notable, and as Dirk says there do not appear to be any sources out there that establish notability. firefly ( t · c ) 06:36, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. JBW ( talk) 14:19, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Satyajeet Tambe

Satyajeet Tambe (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Non-elected politician, does not satisfy WP:NPOL. Not so many changes from previous afd. Also fails WP:GNG. GermanKity ( talk) 05:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GermanKity ( talk) 05:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GermanKity ( talk) 05:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanKity ( talk) 05:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Delete per WP:G4. Nothing has changed from the previous AfD to make this subject notable. Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 12:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete:Fails NPOL Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 09:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete. President of a political party's youth wing is not an WP:NPOL-passing role, and the sourcing consists primarily of glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things, with not nearly enough coverage about him to claim that he passes WP:GNG in lieu of having to hold an NPOL-passing role. Bearcat ( talk) 17:24, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep First delete in 2016 was five years ago, the second delete nomination from earlier this year was from indef blocked sockpuppet. Correct there is no presumed notability under NPOL, but are editors certain this is a WP:BASIC failure: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability"? There's extensive non-trivial coverage of the subject in Marathi and Hindi since 2019 and he appears to be frequently interviewed. ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]}

Regards,-- Goldsztajn ( talk) 02:33, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

"Interviewed" isn't a notability criterion. The notability test is not passed on sources in which he's the speaker of content about other things, it's passed on sources in which he's the subject of content written or spoken by other people. Bearcat ( talk) 16:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply

There's no claim that being interviewed is a criteria for notability, but it's perfectly reasonable to consider the *frequency* of interviews as contributing towards an assessment of notability. Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk) 20:31, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Nissar Syed

Nissar Syed (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

For all the links that have been indiscriminately WP:REFBOMBed into this, only the first one is explicitly about the subject, and that page has PR in its name and uses the WordPress-logo as a favicon. All other links are passing mentions, or (seemingly) no mentions at all, so neither WP:GNG nor WP:NJOURNALIST are met, especially since I haven't found anything better myself. Redirection to Asiavision Awards may be sensible, though I should note that the prominently placed mention of "renowned journalist Nissar Syed" was only recently put there by the page creator. AngryHarpy‍ ^talk 05:04, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AngryHarpy‍ ^talk 05:04, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. AngryHarpy‍ ^talk 05:04, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AngryHarpy‍ ^talk 05:04, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. AngryHarpy‍ ^talk 05:04, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete: I looked through the references and none of them seem to constitute anything resembling WP:SIGCOV.

• 1: This is a press release, and not really a reliable source (even if the page loaded for me, which it did not).
• 2: The most trivial mention possible (article mentions that he was present, and he's in a photo of the event).
• 3: "Announcing details of the 9th edition of Asiavision awards 2014, Nissar Sayed, Managing Diretor, Asiavision Advertising, said Manju Warrier, who has staged a major come back to the Malayalam film industry through 'How Old Are You', has been chosen as best female actress." That's it -- he is quoted very briefly.
• 4: "Nissar Syed, the managing director of Asiavision TV and Movie Awards, who had bestowed her with the Icon of India Award in Dubai in 2015, said the iconic actress exuded a simplicity that was hard to match." A minor quote, again.
• 5: Minor quote.
• 6: Does not mention him at all, anywhere.
• 7: "The programme will be presentated by Nissar Syed, the News Editor of Radio Asia."
• 8: Passing mention.
• I just don't see anything here that demonstrates notability of the guy. jp× g 20:16, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 06:15, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Anil Nandy

Anil Nandy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

He was in the squad of 17; but it appears India played only one match, in which he wasn't in the 11, and there were no substitutions. WP:NOLY says "compete" which I take to mean that the player has to have actually played. I find it unlikely that he meets WP:NFOOTY some other way. If he does, we need it demonstrated, as recent discussions indicate the community consensus is in favour of stricter scrutiny on one-source stubs, their basis for inclusion and the quality of such sourcing. Usedtobecool  ☎️ 03:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool  ☎️ 03:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool  ☎️ 03:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 ( talk) 03:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 ( talk) 03:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete - there is past consensus that being a squad member only at a tournament is not sufficient, you have to actually play - and in the absence of any other sporting achievements or significant coverage, there is no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep per sources below showing he meets notability outside of the Olympics. Giant Snowman 11:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to his brother (according to Olympedia) Nikhil Nandy. Geschichte ( talk) 14:26, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment India played France in the 1948 Olympics and this article states that "The midfield-forward duo of Anil and Sunil Nandy took the field for the Indian National team against France in the 1948 Olympic Games." This was the first football match independent India played. Just to clarify they were only on the bench as far I can see the article appears to state that took the field (on the bench) but did not play on the pitch.It is tough to find resources for 1948 players in a pre internet era and in a foreign language Bengali. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 18:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

This has all the squads for each match of the tournament. Search for "India" to find the match against France. There are 11 players listed for India, but he's not one of them. While he fails WP:NOLY, I guess there's a chance of him meeting WP:GNG, esp. in Bengali sources. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:02, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep, competed for the Olympics even if he was just on the bench in my opinion.-- Ortizesp ( talk) 14:09, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Nexist tough to find sources for 1948 footballer and part of India's most famous football family will pass WP:GNG and played in non internet era will pass WP:GNG with offline and Bengali sources. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 04:12, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep Played in the September 24, 1938 friendly against Australia (listed at ELO as an international match), according to this. The dearth of 1930s and 1940s Bengali sources online probably hides a lot of significant coverage. Perhaps user:GiantSnowman should revisit given evidence of a least one international appearance. Nfitz ( talk) 22:12, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment Good work by Nfitz he has played for India against Australia during the tour of 1938 as per this Socceroo Internationals for 1938 in friendly matches and it does it list a A.Nandy has having played in 4 matches .Actually the Sportsstar lists the match played on September 24, 1938 as the match where R. Lumsden scored India's first hattrick as per this Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 00:25, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep - per new evidence which shows that he represented India on multiple occasions, which is enough for WP:NFOOTBALL. The coverage that people have managed to dig out is already fairly good considering the time period in which he played. There will undoubtedly have been more coverage not yet available online. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:30, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete Materialscientist ( talk) 13:26, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Tommy Jonathan Sinaga

Tommy Jonathan Sinaga (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Non notable actor and musician who fail to meet any criterion from WP:NACTOR and WP:MUSICBIO respectively. A google search turns up nothing concrete., Celestina007 ( talk) 01:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 01:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 01:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 01:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 01:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete as non notable.---- Rdp060707| talk 10:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Was wondering why this was incorporated in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The actor doesn't seem to be cast in any Indian movie. But he certainly fails our notability guidelines for actors due to lack of significant roles or media coverage. The two sources cited are movie databases. Umakant Bhalerao ( talk) 09:51, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply