Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 20 August 22 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep per both WP:SNOW and WP:BEFORE ( non-admin closure). St★lwart 111 02:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Mary Totah

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

Contested prod. Original editor claims referenced obituary is evidence of notability. As written, being a prioress of an abbey in and of itself is not notable. Article should have at least some mention of what makes her wiki worthy and right now, I don’t see anything that distinguishes her from any other nun in the same position. Edit summary indicates obit is evidence of notability n. I’ve seen obituaries that talk only about how the person was a little league coach, Boy Scout den mother, volunteered at their house of worship. A newspaper writing an obituary (and I mean not the paid kind) in and of itself does not make you notable. If this obituary discussed notable parts of this woman’s life, it should be in the article. And said obituary requires a subscription so I am unable to verify as I am unwilling to subscribe. BostonMensa ( talk) 22:58, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:01, 22 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:HEYMAN, though the Times obit (unlike many other obits) is pretty much a pass for notability anyway: the creating editor has now added two further sources, and the one which is not firewalled has great scope for expanding the article. It's pity they didn't add these sources, and expand the article from them, earlier: I can see that categories were deleted because they weren't supported by content, although the new Catholic Herald article supports them. Clearly notable. Pam D 10:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Original editor is right. Unpaid obit in international newspaper is strong evidence of notability. pburka ( talk) 13:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep - BostonMensa, how about you withdraw this so we can all move on? St Anselm ( talk) 15:30, 22 August 2021 (UTC) reply
You should be able to read the Telegraph and The Times obits in ProQuest via the Wikipedia library https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/partners/82/, they're the first two hits when I search for her name Piecesofuk ( talk) 16:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Piecesofuk: Thanks for the reminder. Article now enhanced from the Times obit. Pam D 18:05, 22 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • I am sad that I had to work so hard to have an article improved. And while I will not do as St. Anselm requested amd withdraw this, I am glad the article has improved and if people who know more about both Mary Torah and religion in general believe she is wiki worthy, I will not contest the decision to keep the article. BostonMensa ( talk) 18:53, 22 August 2021 (UTC) reply
What nonsense. You don't appear to have learned anything from this episode. In my experience, when you are in the wrong it is best to accept it with good grace and move on. Philafrenzy ( talk) 19:51, 22 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 Draftify. Vanamonde ( Talk) 09:33, 30 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Khin Oo Hlaing

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

I don’t think being on an advisory board to the State Administrative Council automatically confers notability, and I can’t find multiple reliable sources with in depth coverage to support this BLP in English. There may be appropriate Burmese sources to support a GNG pass. The single source currently in the article is just a passing mention. Mccapra ( talk) 22:11, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra ( talk) 22:11, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Mccapra ( talk) 22:11, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete – while being a member of the State Administration Council itself would arguably result in an NPOL pass, I agree that being a member of an advisory board isn't enough since it apparently lacks any sort of executive, legislative, or judicial authority. There's not enough to meet the GNG, either: my searches in English and Burmese find nothing beyond trivial single-sentence mentions. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 00:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - meets neither WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 02:47, 22 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Drafty newly created Advisory Board is a state level office, a member of the AB is an advisor to the state, which is equivalent to a presidential advisor per 2008 Constitution of Myanmar. Clearly passes WP:NPOL. No one objected at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Htein Lin (colonel). However she fails WP:GNG because she has only one source. So I suggest to move this into the draft until available more source. I'll vote when I found more source in Burmese. Thanks Taung Tan ( talk) 05:20, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep or Drafty I only found her new position in very recent Burmese sources that she was appointed one of the eight members of Legal Committee for the ICJ Rohingya genocide case, a state level government committee which was previously led by detained State Counselor Aung San Suu Kyi. I've expanded the article. [1]. I'm not sure for WP:GNG requirement. So let other editors decide. Taung Tan ( talk) 05:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • I think the position on the ICJ case suggests that there will be more source material soon, so draftifying might be the best course; of course, even if deleted, the article can always be recreated when more material appears. I note in passing that the advisory board neither has an article of its own nor receives mention in the article on the State Administration Council at the present time... which makes it pretty hard to judge whether advisory board membership confers notability. Furius ( talk) 01:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Drafity until enough sources are found. Htanaungg ( talk) 11:11, 26 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. RL0919 ( talk) 23:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Vitruvian Park

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

How does this meet WP:N? Good amount of coverage, but not enough to meet GNG. Boleyn ( talk) 13:54, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:20, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:55, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 22:00, 21 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 23:53, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Cartes du Ciel

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

I couldn't establish that there was enough coverage or significance to meet WP:N. Boleyn ( talk) 13:17, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:19, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:19, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:49, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 21:59, 21 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. Argument to redirect is weakened by the absence of any mention at the proposed target. Vanamonde ( Talk) 09:34, 30 August 2021 (UTC) reply

BIG Television Awards

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

Unnotable award show and doesn't meet WP:ORG Princepratap1234 ( talk) 13:37, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:38, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:38, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Locomotive207: The sources you have given, are of BIG Star Entertainment Awards not of BIG Television Awards.Both are different awards. Princepratap1234 ( talk) 07:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Princepratap1234: Gee, that sure is confusing. Thanks for letting me know.-- 🌀 Locomotive207- talk 🌀 13:30, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:47, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 21:59, 21 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. RL0919 ( talk) 23:40, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Santadas Kathiababa

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

This biography has been moved from mainspace to draft and back again several times in recent months, and various editors have worked on it, but it still has no references. I’ve looked myself but there are too many possible false matches for me to properly understand, and I don’t see anything that looks like reliable independent sources to support this content. There may well be good sources in Bengali or other languages I can’t access, and if so I hope someone will add them. There’s no point in draftifying this yet again - it needs to be either properly sourced or deleted. Mccapra ( talk) 21:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mccapra ( talk) 21:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Mccapra ( talk) 21:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mccapra ( talk) 21:09, 21 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) 17:33, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Koffa Kobort

AfDs for this article:
Koffa Kobort (  | 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:NFOOTY as he has only (supposedly) played in amateur competitions. Fails WP:GNG as I can't find any significant non-routine coverage, other than this interview. Nehme 1499 20:48, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme 1499 20:48, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme 1499 20:48, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Nehme 1499 20:48, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nehme 1499 20:49, 21 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. – bradv 🍁 01:59, 4 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Travel Radar

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

Article for a non-notable magazine that heavily relies on primary sources, mentions of citations in news articles, and basic references that don't verify notability. Fails WP:NMAG. Waddles  🗩  🖉 19:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Waddles  🗩  🖉 19:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Waddles  🗩  🖉 19:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I oppose the deletion of this stub. Whilst I do not believe qualifiable for a page I think as per Wikipedia:NMAG a stub is suitable. "This suggested guideline covers the kinds of periodicals that are formally published, that is they (usually after 1974) have an ISSN code, are circulated in libraries or other reference sources, and (usually or often) appear in paper." -- publication meets this ISSN criteria.
The citations clearly show a referenced ISSN - not an easy process for publishers to go through - media interest (quoted/primary source for a Business Insider Journalist and an interview with Founder) and event coverage provided provided the organisation - including by Inmarsat
Very similar to other magazines of similar notability Airways Magazine and ch-aviation which have passed review with maintenance message for additional citation addition.
Suggestion: Oppose deletion and keep stub with maintenance message. Further citations from Editors encouraged to enhance notability but does not qualify for upright deletion due to meeting basic criteria
A quick citation search using buttons above brings back a Google Search Knowledge-Graph and listing as a publisher on Google News. Two accreditations showing search worthiness. A Google Trend search also shows the entity is highly searched.
LukeWWF ( talk) 19:16, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note to closer LukeWWF was the creator of this article. Newshunter12 ( talk) 14:38, 3 September 2021 (UTC) reply
User:MilborneOne, don't you think the references qualify it for stub status? See Wikipedia:Stub: "A stub is an article deemed too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject."
'Many such similar online magazines' include Airways Magazine, ch-aviation and Aviation Week & Space Technology all which qualify for inclusion. I don't think Travel Radar is any different -- if anything the references of notability is stronger.
LukeWWF ( talk) 10:11, 22 August 2021 (UTC) reply
@ LukeWWF: Stub articles should follow all guidelines that non-stubs do. Stubs aren't for small, non-notable topics, they're just a class of article that are written short. Waddles  🗩  🖉 15:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC) reply
@ WaddlesJP13: Yes I am aware of the requirements for notability and as per the citations and precedent set by other stubs on Wiki, I think the article is more than sufficient to stay. My point was the article is not as long as a full length article but what is there meets notbaility and general Wiki requirements in my opinion.
As mentioned please view similar stubs Airways Magazine, ch-aviation and Aviation Week & Space Technology which set this precedent. Hopefully you can see why my opposition.
LukeWWF ( talk) 19:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC) reply
@ LukeWWF: Those articles have many similar problems and could also be facing deletion soon, as seen by their notability, COI, and primary source tags at the top. If many articles similarly violate the same guidelines that doesn't give this one an exception. Waddles  🗩  🖉 19:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC) reply
@ WaddlesJP13: Thanks for your reply and thoughts Waddles. I was suggesting an alternative resolution to deletion - in that the article remains but with the tags staying and editors encouraged to improve the piece: More experienced editors will be able to better citate I am sure.
In the case of my examples, they faced a similar problem (AfD), but the tags was the chosen resolution and they've been like that since pre-2014; So quite a while! An Administrator has also worked to improve one of them which also sets a good example of an alternative. Just trying to think of alternatives as basic notability is there, and I believe strongly it meets criteria for inclusion.
Would you be willing to consider this as an alternative resolution than a harsh delete?
LukeWWF ( talk) 19:29, 22 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • I consider this page we have to keep it as this page is impacting socially to explore and discover new ways to improve our society in terms of travel, activities, experiences & marketing.
KilianPerez99 ( talk) 08:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC) — KilianPerez99 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
@ KilianPerez99: That's not a valid reason to keep an article. Can you explain how is it "impacting socially to explore and discover new ways to improve our society in terms of travel, activities, experiences & marketing"? That sounds a bit promotional. Waddles  🗩  🖉 15:13, 25 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) 17:33, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Airolam Limited

Airolam Limited (  | 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. Reference 2 (as of the nomination) is clearly marked as a press release, and I have doubts over the reliability of plyreporter.com - see the blatant promotion in the last paragraph of ref 3, and the fact that they appear to offer paid advertising. I can't see any other sources on Google that would establish notability, there is a lot of trivial coverage (listings of information, etc). Pahunkat ( talk) 19:06, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Pahunkat ( talk) 19:06, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Currently not notable, as the cited publications are largely industry talk-sheets. If/when the company is listed and has attained wider coverage in the national press, we can re-create this article, but for now notability has not been reached. I also want to say that I am very uncomfortable with the history of the editor who created this article: there is a faint whiff of commercial interest in this editor's previous attempts at article creation, so it is difficult for me to AGF. RomanSpa ( talk) 21:10, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, no evidence of notability or any signs of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. As such, it's not even worth moving to draft space. Sionk ( talk) 23:12, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:58, 22 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. Even recognizing the discussion was not properly transcluded until 21 August, the participation was robust (five unique contributors) and every participant except the nominator has argued for a keep based on WP:NPOL. (non-admin closure) Enos733 ( talk) 03:23, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Dennis J. Kearney

Dennis J. Kearney (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
It is not obvious from that description in the notability guidelines. The footnote seems to say state legislator is a rule of thumb, it is described as "secondary," but the person must still meet general notability guidelines. Which Kearney does not. There are about 7,300 elected state legislators in the United States. I have rarely seen a wikipedia article for somebody notable solely for having been a state legislator. -- M.boli ( talk) 02:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The politician notability guidelines are infact suggesting that not only all 7,300 current state legislators are notable, but every single person who has ever held such a position. That may in fact be ludicrous, but the current rule we follow is whenever we come across an article on any such person we keep it. To change this, you will need consensus to change to notability rules for politicians. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 22:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:55, 22 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:55, 22 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 23:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply

10K Naira

10K Naira (  | 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:NCORP. There are two refs given on the article and I can't see any others on Google. The Guardian reference is churnalism that consists entirely of the founder's comments on the company, making it a primary source. The Vanguard reference is about the same. Given that as of the vanguard article (31 July 2021) the company was yet to be created, I think that this is WP:TOOSOON. Pahunkat ( talk) 17:22, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Pahunkat ( talk) 17:22, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:57, 22 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. Inclusion at IMDB is not evidence of notability, as it is a comprehensive database which includes user-generated data. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 17:32, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply

The Babysitter (2008 film)

The Babysitter (2008 film) (  | 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:NFILM lacks coverage on reliable sources. Tulkijasi ( talk) 16:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tulkijasi ( talk) 16:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. There's probably hundreds of horror movies titled "The Babysitter", which is why I'm not finding any references that verify notability for this particular one, even when using extra keywords such as "2008". Waddles  🗩  🖉 17:34, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Short film demonstrates notability: See inclusion on IMDB https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1198187/. Director is also a notable figure. I will edit this article to a good standard but I think the outcome here should be to keep it; Despite it being written poorly at present. Also going to tag with Notability/Citation needed tag.
LukeWWF ( talk) 11:55, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. There seems to be no coverage for this short film. Notability is not inherited by them being involved with the film, it just gives a higher chance of coverage. However this is pretty much kind of par for the course with short films, even if they star or were worked on by notable people. Short films typically don't get attention unless they are very lucky or extremely high profile. A good example of this would be that it's not uncommon for short films nominated for an Academy Award to fly under the radar until said nomination to the final ballot, at which point the coverage comes pouring in. Having an IMDb profile doesn't count as the film being notable, as it's a routine database listing. Generally the only thing that a film has to do to be on IMDb is exist and the oversight for that website is loose enough to where hoaxes have been uploaded on multiple occasions. It's not limited to minor films either - years ago a woman managed to add herself to the cast of Captain America: Winter Soldier as "She-Hulk". ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:59, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • I'm not scolding you - I hope that this doesn't come across as that. I made the same mistakes with notability you are here (I also made mistakes with tone, sourcing, and so on), so don't take it badly - we all learn "on the job" here, so to speak. These training modules may be helpful - they're written for students, but they do have a nice amount of knowledge in them. :) ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:01, 23 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) 17:31, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Masimedia

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

Question mark over notability for over 10 years and I can see why. I have not found anything to suggest this could pass WP:GNG. This company barely even seems to be known about, with just 25 pageviews in the last 3 months. Bungle ( talk • contribs) 16:30, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bungle ( talk • contribs) 16:30, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bungle ( talk • contribs) 16:30, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:57, 22 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) 17:31, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Ankit Jaiswal

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

Semi-pro/amateur footballer with barely any coverage. The one cited source is a squad list mention, which is insufficient for WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE search yielded nothing better. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:52, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:54, 21 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) 17:30, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Miko Ardianto

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

A player with no apparent senior professional appearances, so not passing WP:NFOOTBALL. Also no evidence of WP:GNG. Indonesian searches of Miko Ardianto and Miko Ardiyanto yielded nothing better than pre-match squad listings and match reports for U21 fixtures that only offer a passing mention at best. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:25, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:25, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:25, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:28, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
They were relegated from the top tier in 2009-10 so Persebaya were in the 2010–11 Liga Indonesia Premier Division, which was the second tier and not professional. I also can't see any GNG from the sources that you have provided, which would be required as squad lists and passing mentions in match reports are not usually enough. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:55, 28 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) 17:30, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Sir Syed Institute of Learning & Motivation, Battagram

AfDs for this article:
Sir Syed Institute of Learning & Motivation, Battagram (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously deleted following a AFD which closed as delete over notability/sourcing concerns. As far as I can find via Google this hasn't changed, and it still fails WP:NORG. -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 15:15, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 15:15, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 15:15, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Sir the big source for this article is Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Abbottabad, which i already placed in the reference tab. Please review again. Anis Ur Rahman Anas 16:01, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to University of Oxford. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 17:30, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply

The Oxford Blue (newspaper)

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

Fails the WP:GNG. Coverage mostly—

  • is not independent of the subject (e.g., coverage of itself), or
  • is not significant (e.g., merely citing the Blue in passing).

It does not readily appear that this can be rectified. A Google News search for ‘The Oxford Blue’ mostly brings up unrelated restaurant reviews; adding ‘“publication”’ brings up one non-trivial mention, concerning the receipt of an award, which hardly seems enough.

The article also fails the subject-specific guidelines.

  • ‘[W]ell-known and significant journalism award or hono[u]r’: as far as I can tell, the Oxford Blue has won one award (‘best new publication’ from the Student Publication Association.) The award must be ‘well-known and significant’. A Google search for ‘"best new publication" "award"’ brings up only one editorial from another Oxford publication mentioning the award, suggesting it’s not terribly well-known or significant.
  • ‘Some sort of historic purpose or…significant history’ (through RSes): few RSes seem to even mention the history of the publication let alone non-trivially.
  • ‘Authoriative or influential in their subject area’ (through RSes): I can’t find anything to this effect.
  • ‘Frequently cited by other reliable sources’: two articles seem to have been widely reported on, viz., the Peter King child pornography case, and the arrest of Dirk Obbink for stealing ancient papyrus fragments (no RS is given—merely an ‘EXCLUSIVE’ article from the Oxford Blue, but the Guardian said this so I’ll insert it later).
  • ‘Significant publication in…non-trivial niche market’: not sure whether student journalism really counts as a non-trivial niche market, but there don’t seem to be RSes to back this up either.

Even if at least one of these were met (frequent citation seems the closest), the general problem that no RSes seem to actually say anything non-trivial or encyclopaedic about the publication remains. The main sourced section is a recitation of previous reporting—perhaps relevant to other articles but not really encyclopedic on a page about the paper itself. There are also some not particularly encyclopaedic minutiae about internal organisation. This leaves very little. Docentation ( talk) 15:12, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Wikipedia:Notability (media) is an essay and does not seem to have widespread support given how (in my experience) rarely it is used. WP:ORG or WP:GNG is the standard that should apply here. (This is not to say that the subject meets that standard.) 15 ( talk) 16:22, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    • You are quite right. I seem to have misread it as a policy despite it being clearly labelled otherwise. The GNG it is. Docentation ( talk) 16:32, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
      WP:NMEDIA's status isn't particularly clear; there was recently a failed attempt to make it an official guideline, and it failed because there was a bunch of opposition to what it attempted to do for radio stations, but the reception for the newspapers portion was more favorable. IAR, I consider it a reasonable standard. {{u| Sdkb}}  talk 19:17, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Possible sources: Blog post by the Association for Research into Crimes against Art. inpublishing coverage of the Society of Editors award. I would have thought otherwise, but this might be a borderline keep case, mainly hinging on the quality of the ARCA blog post - being hosted on blogspot doesn't make the source unusable, given that it is its official one. 15 ( talk) 16:57, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to University of Oxford per WP:TOOSOON, and maybe add a sentence on it there. Some student newspapers are notable and others aren't, which leads to many borderline cases like this. If this newspaper survives and grows, it may become notable (it's Oxford, after all, so I'd expect it to garner more media attention than your average community college), but right now, it just doesn't have a significant enough history to warrant an entry in the world's enduring record of notable organizations. Regarding the sources, I'm willing to look beyond the informal blog styling of the ARCA post and say it counts (barely; Association for Research into Crimes against Art has a page but it's pretty shaky itself), but for InPublishing, it begins "As reported by Claire Meadows on the Society of Editors website", and the Society of Editors sponsored the award the paper won, so it's not fully independent. If this was an established publication with a long history, I'd say sure, let's look the other way on the shakiness of the sources and just let it stay, but I can't do that here. Redirecting will allow it to be more easily resurrected if it gets coverage in the future and follows our normal practice for non-notable college publications. {{u| Sdkb}}  talk 19:39, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: that ARCA report is a good find. I agree with Sdkb that it’s somewhat borderline. That said, even if we do count it, it’s only one source. An article with just that for non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources would not I think really be encyclopedic. There’s already a paragraph on the main University of Oxford page on student newspapers and it would make sense to mention the Blue (regardless of the outcome here actually). Docentation ( talk) 13:56, 22 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - some more possible sources: Geddes Prize award and The Times article on sensitivity reading. Amsmailes ( talk) 11:49, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    @ Amsmailes: I can't get past the Times paywall. How significant is the coverage there? {{u| Sdkb}}  talk 15:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    @ Sdkb: The article covers proposed sensitivity reading from Oxford SU with reference to all three papers in Oxford (Cherwell, The Oxford Student, and The Oxford Blue) and reflects a comment requested from the Blue at the end. {{u| Amsmailes}}  talk 18:28, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    Neither link works for me: could you check them please? Jonathan A Jones ( talk) 20:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    @ Jonathan A Jones: I’ve fixed the links in the comment. There was a pipe when there shouldn’t have been.
    I don’t think these get over the GNG line to be honest. There’s only one mention (‘Cherwell and The Oxford Blue, a new independent website, said they had not been contacted by the students’ union about the plans.’) I consider this trivial: analogously, if a newspaper report concerning a government plan to censor all newspapers were to contain a brief comment by an otherwise obscure local newspaper at the end, that report would not constitute non-trivial coverage of the local newspaper for GNG purposes. As for the prize, well, SEH awarded it and SEH reported on it. Docentation ( talk) 22:47, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to University of Oxford per WP:TOOSOON, as suggested by User:Sdkb. It caught my eye immediately as of doubtful notability and a probable COI. Deb ( talk) 10:58, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to University of Oxford: I'm familiar with the newspaper (as an Oxonian) and this article is just PR spin. The Oxford Blue wants to portray itself as a competitor to Cherwell and The Oxford Student (and its reputation among students is that its main distinguishing feature is its dissenting social conservativism), but it's just not got the history, credibility or acceptance. The article boasts that it's the "first digital-only student newspaper in Oxford", when this is actually just a reframing of a big reason why it's not as respectable (no print copy distributed to colleges like the others, and hell even the The Oxymoron).
    The article fails GNG and the essay NMEDIA (which I'll take as at least reflecting rough common practice) and it'd be better TNT'd even if it later becomes notable. The creator violated WP:COIEDIT: you should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly. Redirecting to University of Oxford is just barely appropriate, I think, due to the brief mention there and as this is commonly done for student newspapers.
    To go through the case for notability thoroughly, the BBC doesn't seem to cite The Oxford Blue as the article claims (perhaps it used to appear under the local news links section), but The Guardian does here and here. This Society of Editors award is genuine. The Geddes Prize above is internal to Oxford. The ARCA blog is nonsense. Only the award(s) are in-depth, and not sufficient for NMEDIA#1, while NMEDIA#4 is not passed by just a handful of recent citations and claims of NMEDIA#2,3,5 are thoroughly implausible given the recency of the publication. For GNG, again it's a fail, not enough coverage of the publication's history, founding and practices. Definitely too soon and the creator is clearly an EiC from their username and disclosed COI so not here for the right reasons. — Bilorv ( talk) 12:16, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    its main distinguishing feature is its dissenting social conservativism The fact that we have no source to establish this key fact is as good a reason as any this isn't ready for mainspace yet. Thanks for your insights, {{u| Sdkb}}  talk 15:14, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    I don’t really think that the considerations in the first few sentences really come into this. A newspaper could be digital only, mostly known for social conservatism, and everything else you say, and still meet the GNG. Close observers (e.g. of typography) might say that the Mekong Review tries (and fails) to imitate the style of the London Review of Books: but both are still notable. (It also occurs to me that the case against deletion is stronger on WP:NMEDIA than it is on the GNG.) That said I agree with your analysis of sources, and there’s a good case here that even were it notable one would be better off starting again. Docentation ( talk) 20:08, 24 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. RL0919 ( talk) 20:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Nathan Reiber

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

Doesn't appear to have any notability outside their connection with the Surfside condominium collapse. I would have simply redirected there, but the article creator, in their initial edit summary said, "for the record, I understand if anyone has WP:BLP1E concerns about this one. I wouldn't oppose testing it at AfD". Appears to be a case of WP:BIO1E. Onel5969 TT me 15:02, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:10, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:10, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:10, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:10, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. He did get an obituary in Miami Herald in 2015: [2]. Not seeing anything else outside the new coverage related to the accident, but it does invalidate the nom concerns, I think. PS. As for the proper vote, I am on the fence. Without the obit I'd lean towards delete, with it I think this is very borderline.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:59, 22 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I think he was notable as a real estate developer even before the building collapsed. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 19:22, 22 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Years before the Florida incident, there was also reporting of his resignation from the Law Society of Upper Canada (presumably knowing he would be disbarred otherwise), and a decade later his tax fines. I added references to the article. Nfitz ( talk) 19:46, 22 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Neutral - As User:onel5969 noted; I created this page knowing the argument for notability was pretty marginal. I think it's reasonable to call this article WP:BIO1E or WP:RECENTISM. That said, this guy does seem to have been linked to several marginally notably events and strung together, they might make him meet WP:GNG. For the record, I thought it was interesting that the Surfside Condo building was built by this colorful and vaguely criminal character. I was a bit curious whether there might be some linkage between the character and the collapse. Having learned more about the incident since I started this article, I'm guessing the collapse won't ultimately be blamed on malconstruction or by extension Reiber. NickCT ( talk) 19:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep he had an obituary and was mentioned in the news before the collapse, I see enough GNG even before the collapse. -- hroest 16:01, 25 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) 17:29, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Sky Hawk International Public School & College, Battagram

AfDs for this article:
Sky Hawk International Public School & College, Battagram (  | 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:NORG, only sources in the article are a index of schools and a link to Google Maps, and I cannot find any other sources online -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 14:40, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 14:40, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 14:40, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Hi sir, please review this article, i hope now it is fully ready, also a great reference Anis Ur Rahman Anas 14:55, 21 August° 2021 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 17:28, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply

System Recordings

System Recordings (  | 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:CORP or WP:GNG. Boleyn ( talk) 14:15, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 15:18, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 15:18, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:23, 21 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 Barbie Maan#Discography as an WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 ( ICE T • ICE CUBE) 16:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Teri Gali

Teri Gali (  | 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:NSONG Princepratap1234 ( talk) 14:13, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Princepratap1234 ( talk) 14:22, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Princepratap1234 ( talk) 14:22, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:09, 21 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 13:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Kim Siever

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

Local journalist (blogger?) and unsuccessful political candidate that does not pass WP:GNG, WP:JOURNALIST, or WP:NPOL. Issue isn't COI (disclosed), it's the overall notability of the subject. Many references are to articles by the subject - this isn't a substitute for *independent* articles *about* the subject. Madg2011 ( talk) 13:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Madg2011 ( talk) 13:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Madg2011 ( talk) 13:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Madg2011 ( talk) 13:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Madg2011 ( talk) 13:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
For whatever it’s worth, this article was submitted for AfC review and was independently assessed and approved. — Kmsiever ( talk) 17:49, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Looking at online sources only, the only reliable sources in the article are passing mentions of the subject or links to the subject's social media feeds. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The rest are primary sources. I'm sure the offline sources are no better. The fact that the primary editor has been the subject himself does not help the situation. At this point, as the subject is running in the upcoming Canadian federal election, this amounts to undue weight on the candidate. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 23:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. People don't get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they have not won, so neither running for city council in 2001 nor his current candidacy get him in the door at all — and actors are not "inherently" notable just because it's possible to use IMDb and the self-published primary source websites of theatre companies as technical verification that acting roles have been had, but require evidence of distinction (such as a Canadian Screen Award nomination, or other reliably sourced evidence of the significance of said acting roles). Obviously no prejudice against recreation (with better sources) on or after September 20 if he wins a seat in Parliament (spoiler alert: very unlikely, given that he's running in Alberta but not as a Conservative), but nothing here is already grounds for a Wikipedia article about him to exist today. And yeah, the fact that he started the article himself doesn't do him any favours either (though it isn't in and of itself the killing blow.) Bearcat ( talk) 13:43, 24 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 Binance. Vanamonde ( Talk) 09:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC) reply

WazirX

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

A classic case of WP:ADMASQ. Also, it lacks WP:NPOV. - Hatchens ( talk) 12:46, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hatchens ( talk) 12:46, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment There is not even a single sentence in the article which is not referenced with WP:RS. Regarding WP:NPOV, read WP:POVDELETION, especially the last paragraph. Even if it lacks WP:NPOV that needs editing not deletion. This company is in the news recently for both good and negative reasons. Anybody can add more information if they wish. I expected issues when created this article because it was deleted earlier, but I chose to be WP:BOLD. Since this nomination is based on 'assuming bad faith' and not on notability, I don't have anything else to add. Leaving to others. - The9Man ( Talk) 13:10, 17 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Dear The9Man, you're an experienced editor with a good number of edits (as a history) under your belt. If you, yourself added a sentence - "At the point of its launch no other exchanges has this feature that helped the company to grow rapidly." [3]- which is nothing but directly contradicting the very essence of WP:NPOV. You have the right to make your assumptions and at the same time build your articles. And, so do I. Since I may make mistakes in my assumptions and to overcome this or to make it doubly sure that my tags are not affecting the pages or the editors like you - I always call for an unbiased assessment from the expert editors who have much more experience in dealing with such doubtful pages. Lately, I have done a mistake of my own in approving an article in the first place. Our job as reviewers is to learn from such mistakes and do the needful. - Hatchens ( talk) 05:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply
      • I personally have the market knowledge that P2P is the one thing that helped this company to grow fast at that point in time and they were the first. It is a FACT for me, supported with references. 1 2 Could I have used better wording? Maybe. You found this is intentional promotion? OKAY. - The9Man ( Talk) 15:29, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply
        • The9Man, thank you for sharing these links. The first carries a byline "Bloomberg Quint Brand Studio" , which clearly tells it's a sponsored post. And, the second link what you have shared is from Inc42 which is known for sharing promotional content like YourStory.com (which has been duly banned by Wikipedia). It may be FACT for you, but I regret to inform - your FACT is not a FACT as per the Wikipedia guidelines. Now, I have serious doubt on your capabilities of handling AfC reviews. - Hatchens ( talk) 18:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply
          • Okay, I messed up with the first link in a hurry that I didn't see the brand part. But I don't remember that I have seen anything regarding Inc42, please lead me there.
            I am not defending this anymore, and if the community feels the article is not notable, let it go. I am agreeing. Thank you. - The9Man ( Talk) 19:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Ping: Need unbiased experts' opinion on this AfD. Hence sending this ping -> @ Timtrent, HighKing, Nomadicghumakkad, and GermanKity:. Let there be a "general consensus". - Hatchens ( talk) 05:46, 18 August 2021 (UTC) Not a Healthy AfD Practice. In agreement with MarioGom. - Hatchens ( talk) 08:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    Please, see WP:CANVASSING. MarioGom ( talk) 14:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Since it has been acquired by Binance, then it's better to be merged with it (if not deleted). - Hatchens ( talk) 12:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP. Also see WP:GHITS. If you can point to individual references that meet NCORP to establish notability, please post links. HighKing ++ 13:57, 24 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 13:54, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply

William Hamman

AfDs for this article:
William Hamman (  | 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 individual. Got a flutter of news coverage at the time, but isn't otherwise notable. PepperBeast (talk) 13:19, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:40, 21 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 13:53, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Gum Crossroads, Delaware

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gum_Crossroads,_Delaware&action=edit

Gum Crossroads, Delaware (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mass-produced stub with questionable GNIS source. Previously prodded with the rationale: "Gum Crossroads, Delaware" is not an unincorporated community in Delaware. It is an intersection in the middle of farmland with no houses around. An intersection is not notable. Geschichte ( talk) 13:34, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:34, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:34, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. There's a couple houses down the road, but I'm pretty sure they're just rural farm houses and not part of a community. I would say keep if there was some sort of general store or gas station with the name, a trace of a post office in this location, or any sort of small collection of houses centered around the intersection to form a legitimate community, but its just a general intersection of country roads and there's not even a label for it on Google Maps. Waddles  🗩  🖉 17:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • delete The few houses are shown in aerials to have been built in the last 25 years or so, and are jjust randowm;y shoved into the forest. Other than that quadrant, it's just farm fields. Really, the PROD message should have been cause for taking a second look rather than blindly trusting a listing. Mangoe ( talk) 18:50, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect as a useful navigational aid for Sussex County, Delaware. USGS maps say that in 1917 nothing was there, in 1944 there were a couple houses nearby, in 1992 it was the same story, and a Google satellite map from today says that there really is not anything going on at the location in question, or immediately around it. Barring anyone coming up with news sources or books mentioning the area as having had some historical significance, I am forced to conclude that -- as the kids say -- this is "literally not even a thing". jp× g 09:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete not notable Idunnox3 ( talk) 23:04, 26 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) 17:23, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply

IndieGala

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

Not a notable website to be included as a Wiki. - Iamrajdeepdas ( talk) 05:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete Per others, there is a distinct lack of indepth coverage about the company. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 21:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 10:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
We also don't Keep articles unless there are references which establish their notability according to the appropriate guidelines, which in this case is WP:NCORP. It would be very helpful and lend weight to your !vote if you can provide links to the best WP:THREE references below. HighKing ++ 11:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
I do not have the spoons to look for hundreds of them, rate them all, and decide on which are the most important three, but it is treated as notable by assorted significant, independent, reliable, and secondary sources eg
Eurogamer eg https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2020-11-18-paradox-interactive-publisher-sale-goes-live-at-indiegala
Rock Paper Shotgun eg https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/topics/indiegala
PC Gamer eg https://www.pcgamer.com/uk/indiegala-bundle-defies-its-own-name-includes-mass-effect-2/
I can't find any other site in the 'Software digital distribution platforms' category that has more members of its Steam group than https://steamcommunity.com/groups/indiegala.
When the threat of deletion has ended, I can spend the spoons adding more references to the article. Lovingboth ( talk) 17:10, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Several sources/references have been added, the article has been slightly updated with more notable and up to date information, and it should be further updated with time, in the near future. StevenCojo ( talk) 15:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nitesh003 ( talk) 12:33, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:38, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:38, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:38, 21 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 11:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Alberto Alcázar

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

Probable autobiography with no evidence of notability found in a WP:BEFORE search. I can't find any coverage of his roles relating to composing music for these obscure indie games and I can't find any independent coverage of his career as a musician or as an actor. I can't see any criteria at WP:NACTOR or WP:NMUSICIAN that he actually meets. A lot of the references used to support notability don't mention Alcázar at all, which is bizarre. The only thing I'm not too sure about is video game composer notability standards, so I would appreciate if someone from WP:VG could weigh in and confirm whether he can be presumed notable for that, since it looks like he fails everything else. Source analysis for WP:GNG to follow. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:55, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:55, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm12851006/bio No No User-generated and unreliable, see WP:IMDB No Contains barely any info ✘ No
https://www.elperiodico.cat/ca/tele/20180226/salvados-la-sexta-retrat-gent-anonima-dese-aniversari-6649813 Yes Yes No Fails to mention him ✘ No
https://www.formulatv.com/noticias/8791/jordi-evole-la-edicion-semanal-de-salvados-dejara-de-ser-tematica/ Yes Yes No Not mentioned here ✘ No
https://www.espinof.com/la-sexta/la-curiosa-evolucion-de-salvados-en-sus-cinco-anos-de-existencia Yes Yes No No mention here either ✘ No
https://www.flickr.com/photos/nippleeatanna/ No User-generated No User-generated No ✘ No
https://pro.imdb.com/title/tt15267314 No No User-generated and unreliable, see WP:IMDB No ✘ No
https://open.spotify.com/artist/0c5Ry6QOy30kSddNs36oo5 No No Spotify is an unreliable, user-generated source No Being on Spotify doesn't indicate notability ✘ No
https://www.sevenwordsmusic.com/ No Apparently his own website No No Link doesn't work ✘ No
https://soundcloud.com/sevenwordsmusic No No SoundCloud is user-generated and largely unreliable No ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}.
Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Blocked sockmaster; see SPI. Mz7 ( talk) 04:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Response #0000 to Spiderone

Hello Spiderone, first of all; hope you're having a wonderful day and we together improve this article so it meets the Wikipedia's guidelines by far.

Regarding your comments:

  • As exposed on the article this celebrity "is better known by his nickname Seven Words"; evidence of notability could be found in a WP:BEFORE search (just unveiled his real name).
  • His roles related to composing music, his musician career and as an actor could actually be found with his real name and or nicknames (all of them are cameos playing himself as a "unkown person" but he's mentioned in the credits).
  • Not all references mention Alcázar because some of them are not for him but for mentioned items related to the subject ( Salvados, for example). I don't find that bizarre; enriches the article imo.
  • I'm sure he meets game composer and or developer notability standards exceeding aproved articles as for example bignic, "he's the Spanish Toby Fox" (as said on TV about him) with a huge influence in the Spanish indie gamedev community, less than Toby Fox but well known for a set achievements in different areas related and not related to audiovisual projects.

I've updated the source assesment table (hope you don't mind, I thought that creating another table could be confusing):

  • Deleted rows: related to Flickr (this one should not be placed in the body, my bad; just corrected that). SoundCloud, website of this celebrity and his Spotify channel are not reliable sources; they weren't trying to be, just external links related to the subject, see WP:EXT.
  • Updated second row: the celebrity is quoted several times and meets criteria at least as presumed, see WP:SIGCOV.
  • Updated fifth row: sections such as the cast list, character names, the crew lists, release dates, company credits, awards, soundtrack listing, filming locations, technical specs, alternate titles, running times, and rating certifications on IMDb could be used as reliable sources, see WP:CITEIMDB

All that said, I'll keep working on this article so we reach a consensus. KharmaJoy (Talk to KharmaJoy) 17:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Response #0001 to Spiderone

  • @ Spiderone: I apologize for modifying your table instead of creating a new one, didn't thought of it as a comment out of ignorance; my bad. I'm adding mine here, don't want to touch yours anymore (obviously) to avoid misunderstandings; you may want to roll yours back, the article has been updated so you may want to update it too.
  • Source assessment - GNG met:
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.elperiodico.cat/ca/tele/20180226/salvados-la-sexta-retrat-gent-anonima-dese-aniversari-6649813 Yes Yes Quoted several times Yes ✔ Yes
https://pro.imdb.com/title/tt15267314 Yes Yes Cast list, character names, crew lists, awards and soundtrack listings are reliables sources, see WP:CITEIMDB Yes ✔ Yes
http://www.udat.es/alberto-alcazar-bronce-en-el-regional-de-400m-vallas-con-marca-personal/ Yes Yes Independent newspaper WP:INDEPENDENT Yes ✔ Yes
https://ahoraclm.com/2018/06/02/el-talaverano-alberto-alcazar-plata-en-el-regional-de-atletismo/ Yes Yes Independent newspaper WP:INDEPENDENT Yes ✔ Yes
https://eldiadigital.es/art/297395/el-talaverano-alberto-alcazar-bronce-en-el-regional-de-400m-vallas Yes Yes Independent newspaper WP:INDEPENDENT Yes ✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}.
KharmaJoy (Talk to KharmaJoy) 20:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Collapsing discussion involving blocked socks; see SPI. Mz7 ( talk) 04:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • @ KharmaJoy: Per WP:TPO, Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning. Adding your own entries to a table someone else made counts as changing the meaning, because you are making it seem like that user said something which they didn't. It does not matter if it would be "confusing" to create your own table, you should not ever add your own content into other users' comments without their express permission. Mlb96 ( talk) 19:11, 22 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • @ Mlb96: I'm sorry, didn't thought of that table as a comment; my bad, won't happen again. User:KharmaJoy ( talk) 20:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - firstly, how is this athletics Alcázar the same person? Do you have proof of that? This looks like a case of WP:FRANKENSTEIN where a non-notable athlete and a non-notable musician are erroneously considered to be the same person. Anyway, being a regional medallist clearly fails WP:NTRACK. The musician subject to deletion is called Alberto Alcázar Martín but the athlete, subject to the sources that have recently been added is called Alberto Alcázar Casasola. See RFEA profile. This article is incredibly misleading. Are you writing an article about AAM or AAC? Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:41, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - As @ Spiderone: has pointed out "A. Alcázar Martín" is clearly not "A. Alcázar Casasola", there are records of an "A. Alcázar Martín-Casasola". Maybe the confusion came from there, maybe "Casasola" and "Martín-Casasola" are the same person; but Wikipedia isn't built upon "maybes". I'm changing my nomination on this discussion. This article started being about "A. Alcázar Martín" the indie game developer and score composer @ HelenaMCRfan: so I suggest you to do more research on that athletic Casasola if you want to write a different article about him. @ KharmaJoy: I suggest you to focus on research "Seven Words" the nickname for which Alcázar is known. GamedevExpert (Talk to GamedevExpert) 18:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock; see SPI. Mz7 ( talk) 04:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. My search comes up with nothing to establish any notability. -- MuZemike 11:26, 27 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 15:22, 3 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Barbara Sobaszkiewicz

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

Previously deleted due to failure of WP:NTENNIS and WP:GNG after the NTENNIS guidelines were revised to exclude 10k and 25k ITF wins. User:Fyunck(click) raised some excellent points in the previous discussion and, as far as I can see, absolutely nothing has happened since that makes her any more notable than she was before. No Fed Cup appearances and no coverage found in a Polish source search that would count towards GNG. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Could you comment on why "In 2013, she played for Poland at the XXVII Universiade in Kazan, Russia where she won the bronze medal in womens' doubles" is not sufficient for NTENNIS or WP:ANYBIO#1 (The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor) or #2 (The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field)? Mind you, I am not saying it should be, but it sounds "nice" for someone like me who knows nothing about this sport. I concur Polish sources have no SIGCOV of her, and I nominated her for discussion on pl wiki ( pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/biografie/2021:08:14:Barbara Kapaś). I'll report anything of interest said there, but I fully expect people to raise the same question I did (isn't "one bronze medal" an indication of notability?). For the record, I do have serious issues with spamgraphies of minor sportspeople who attracted zero attention in media and just have participated in few niche events, but then, the same is true for people in other fields too we write articles for, and just say that some niche elected politicians, CEOs or scholars are notable due to the virtue of having some particular post or such (the problem is just much more accute for sport bios, since they form what, like half of Wikipedia biographies in existence...?). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:05, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Consensus is never going to be that clear for tennis players due to the relatively low participation at AfDs. The Universiade isn't mentioned anywhere at NTENNIS so we can't say that this player meets NTENNIS even if she did win a medal. I did raise a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis but, again, participation was low so hard to draw any clear consensus. I think NTENNIS would need to be reworded to include the Universiade if we did want to go down the route of presuming notability for its participants. In my opinion, there would need to be some sort of convincing argument that most if not all players that get a medal in this student event pass GNG. With regards to ANYBIO, this is an interesting point and I don't think that it gets raised often with sportspeople. I could definitely see #1 applying for ATP Awards or WTA Awards and #2 applying for anyone in, say, the International Tennis Hall of Fame but, then again, such people almost always pass GNG anyway. It'll be interesting to see what comes back on pl.wiki in any case. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:06, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Spiderone: FYI, the pl wiki discussion was closed quickly as apparently pl wiki's equivalent of NTENNIS I was not aware of does lists winning a medal at Universiade as sufficient for notability. Knowing very little about this event I am abstaining on whether it's overly inclusive or just right; I remain concerned that there is no evidence of media coverage of her career. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:01, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Wow, that's certainly a very different NTENNIS. I would also say that winning a medal at the Youth Olympics doesn't make you automatically notable, although many such people pass GNG or NTENNIS anyway so it's a bit of a moot point. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Spiderone I don't have much of an opinion here (and in fact I am leaning to delete myself given the lack of coverage, which suggests that sadly nobody cares about the Youth Olympics outside the participants and those closely connected to them...), but I'll just note the discussion at pl wiki ended with a near universal keep. Interesting how different groups of Wikipedia volunteers arrived at different conclusions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - In looking at her article she is not even close to being notable per Tennis Project or NSPORT. I can't speak on whether she has reached GNG by some other means. Has she ever played on the WTA Circuit? No. Won a WTA tournament? No. Played in international Fed Cup? No. Perhaps entered the Olympics? No. WikiProject Tennis has a pretty low bar for automatic notability and she fails. Editor Vecihi91 has created a whole bunch of articles over the last year that have had to be deleted. This looks like another. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 08:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Five gold (and some others) medals of the Polish championship (2011-2013). [4] [5] Nedops ( talk) 09:32, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Which of the 6 criteria at WP:NTENNIS would this count towards? Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply
None of them. The world of sport does not end at these 6 criteria :) Nedops ( talk) 20:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The issue is that this is the second time that this player has been up for debate and still there is no evidence or even a suggestion that she might meet GNG, which is ultimately the guideline that she should meet. We have policies like NTENNIS and GNG for a reason. NTENNIS allows enough GNG-failing articles to be created as it is, I really don't see the point in lowering the bar even further. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless ( talk) 11:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Agreed. It's also a completely unreliable predictor of GNG, as is the case here. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 06:52, 1 September 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 13:51, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Manchi Rojulu Vachchaayi

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

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing was found in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites, videos, and promo material.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.-- Filmomusico ( talk) 20:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.-- Filmomusico ( talk) 20:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless ( talk) 11:23, 21 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 merge to Ellora Patnaik. ✗ plicit 13:47, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Devraj Patnaik

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

Doesn't meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Boleyn ( talk) 18:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 20:22, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless ( talk) 11:22, 21 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. Sandstein 10:12, 29 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Living presidents of India

Living presidents of India (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article appears to contravene the WP:INDISCRIMINATE policy as well as the WP:GNG guideline, being a collection of random factoids without context. There are no sources indicating that "living presidents of India" is a topic of scholarly research or interest. In other words, the topic is not notable. Surtsicna ( talk) 09:13, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna ( talk) 09:13, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna ( talk) 09:13, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
They are common because people see it done somewhere and make another such list elsewhere and nobody bothers to tackle them. They are certainly not accepted in the sense of having been approved in a discussion. We'll scrutinize each of those. Surtsicna ( talk) 09:53, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Surtsicna – I created this article, and I think that the major issue with this is sources. I have added some sources, and can add various other sources and scholarly research (if available). Also, we have these types of list for head of states for various nations (as SpacemanSpiff pointed out). We do have a silly article on List of presidents of the United States with facial hair, and was nominated for deletion 4-5 times, but was kept as it had quite number of citations and notability in some sources. Seeing the number of lists relating to U.S. presidents, I guess this list should not be deleted. I'll try to make necessary changes. Kavyansh.Singh ( talk) 09:55, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Some crap existing does not mean other crap should exist. If living or bearded US presidents are of interest to scholars, so be it; but if living presidents of India are not a subject of "significant coverage in reliable sources", there is no reason for a standalone article on that topic. Which are living and which are not can be seen from the birth and death dates in the general list anyway. Surtsicna ( talk) 10:00, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
EDIT: Also, for Living presidents of the United States and Living vice presidents of the United States Peter Ormond 💬 14:30, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Hi @ Peter Ormond – I have now added various citations to the article. With 30 citations from mostly reliable sources, I think the venerability part is not resolved. The major question for this nomination should be whether all the article titled "Living presidents/prime ministers of ...." are notable or not. If this will be deleted, I see no reason why Living presidents of the United States or Living vice presidents of the United States should not be deleted. Also, please let me know if there's any other thing that I can fix with this article. – Kavyansh.Singh ( talk) 14:15, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 10:04, 21 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 12:43, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Lexie Bigham

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

Minor actor who played small forgettable roles with the exception of one larger supporting role (but still not a leading role) in South Central. Fails the multiple significant roles portion of criteria 1 of WP:NACTOR. Does not meet any other notability criteria for actors or at WP:ANYBIO. Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable references. Fails WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 ( talk) 03:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 ( talk) 04:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 ( talk) 04:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 ( talk) 04:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 ( talk) 04:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 08:35, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 10:00, 21 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. RL0919 ( talk) 20:53, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Lascivious Biddies

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

91 results on Google. Only hits are standard databases like Allmusic and Discogs, plus sites selling their music. Found a couple newspaper articles, but they are merely PR fluff for local concerts. Seems to fail every variant of WP:NMUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 03:26, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 03:26, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 03:26, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 09:56, 21 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. RL0919 ( talk) 20:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Amber Court

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

Article on a property development in Malaysia that is packed with great detail, mostly from primary sources, and has received some mention in general sources but nothing that looks to me like it establishes notability. Similar articles could be written for tens of thousands of new buildings each year but there’s nothing really encyclopaedic about them. Mccapra ( talk) 09:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Mccapra ( talk) 09:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Mccapra ( talk) 09:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but clean up. The Wikipedia article is indeed a rambling over-detailed account of the various developments around 'Samaworld' should probably be half the current length. But the Amber Court development seems to have developed a reputation for its poor state of repair and possible haunting. After all there are a couple of news articles, a book and a German TV documentary about it. Sionk ( talk) 18:04, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: The developments around Genting Highlands are not like any others. More costly civil engineering work is needed because of the difficult mountain-landscape and climate. The companies working on these projects are from all over the world, hence the international attention at the time. SamaWorld is directly connected with Amber Court. The SamaWorld development had strong media attention at the time, but not so much today (but it is still relevant). Amber Court gained a lot of fame on social media over the last 10 years. There exist many videos with millions of views from "YouTubers" around the world. It's the main location for the movie "Haunted Hotel" which boosted the attention in Asia. Last year the Galileo documentary was broadcasted in Germany and my German article about Amber Court was accepted to Wikipedia. Amber Court has constant media attention in Malaysia too (as seen in the article references), and is included in the List of reportedly haunted locations. I tried not to focus on the "haunted topic" because Wikipedia should be neutral (and we all know that it's nonsense). I wouldn't call my sources "primary" because nearly all of them are from well-known newspapers (I think blueprints, statistics, etc are called primary). Thanks + greetings -- 126Edward ( talk) 22:49, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 09:46, 21 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 Sanno Institute of Management. With no references and an external link to the university's website, there is no content to merge. ✗ plicit 12:58, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Jiyugaoka Sanno College

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

I wasn't convinced this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn ( talk) 17:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 20:20, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:07, 21 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) 04:01, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Will Powers (doctor)

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

An interesting combination of an advertisement for a physician sourced to press releases, and a tragic account of the death of two cats. Neither half is encyclopedic. Originally submitted as draft with the title Will Powers (physician), and quite reasonably declined twice by two different reviewers. Resubmitted a third term (with a slightly variant title) and also entered directly into mainspace. The photo was taken by the contributor of the article. NOT ADVERTISEMENT and NOT NEWS. DGG ( talk ) 00:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 00:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 00:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 00:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for failing notability guidelines, as well as per nom. -- SilverTiger12 ( talk) 01:57, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment hi I created the page after attempting to create a draft and feeling that the draft got unfairly declined. I don't believe I used any press releases in this article, only sources considered reputable on Wikipedia. Please explain which sources are inappropriate for Wikipedia, and which aspects of the page are not notable? I believe all the sources indicate notability. I have no conflict of interest other than personal interest in the topic of transgender healthcare. Like the underrepresentation of women on Wikipedia, transgender topics are also underrepresented. I also want to clarify that I used a public domain image, not a photo taken by myself. Please assume good faith. Likeanechointheforest ( talk) 19:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Creating an article after the draft has been declined multiple times is not acceptable, period. First and foremost, the doctor is not notable, even if the sources are reliable. And no, a supposed underrepresentation of transgender topics is not an excuse for dodging or ignoring notability guidelines. There is nothing that sets this doctor apart from any other conscientious citizen who does something for his or her community. -- SilverTiger12 ( talk) 01:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, no evidence that the individual meets GNG, and while I have no doubt that the creator acted in good faith, the only sources available resulted in the article taking a tone that could be seen as promotional. BilledMammal ( talk) 22:28, 20 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:07, 21 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 12:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Cat Aficionado Association

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

Never met WP:SIGCOV standards. There is only a single source "The Mythology of Cats" that even references it more than trivially. Elephanthunter ( talk) 17:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Elephanthunter ( talk) 17:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Elephanthunter ( talk) 17:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:11, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. 解培华 (2014-07-19). "世界名猫亮相哈尔滨集中选美(图)" (in Chinese). China News Service. Archived from the original on 2021-08-07. Retrieved 2021-08-07.
    2. 牛莹 (2005-01-24). "周末到王府井看名猫选美". Legal Evening News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-08-07. Retrieved 2021-08-07 – via Sina Corporation.
    3. 曹囡囡 (2005-01-31). "北京：世界名猫与京城百姓共贺新春(组图)" (in Chinese). China National Radio. Archived from the original on 2021-08-07. Retrieved 2021-08-07 – via Sina Corporation.
    4. 汪震龙 (2005-01-30). "纯种猫抢眼新东安(图)". Beijing Youth Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-08-07. Retrieved 2021-08-07 – via Sina Corporation.
    5. "北京保护小动物协会爱猫分会宣布成立". Beijing Youth Daily (in Chinese). 2001-03-05. Archived from the original on 2021-08-07. Retrieved 2021-08-07 – via Sina Corporation.
    6. 陳家倫 (2014-12-06). "北京名貓展 身價破3萬". China Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-08-07. Retrieved 2021-08-07.
    7. Chen, Huiwen (2006). 貓典一籮筐 [Mao Dian Yi Luo Kuang] (in Chinese). Tianji: Baihua Literature and Art Publishing House [ zh. pp. 25–27. ISBN  7-5306-4362-2. Retrieved 2021-08-07 – via Internet Archive.
    8. Ling, Heng Yi (2013-03-19). "Cats are the top dogs for many pet owners". Shanghai Daily. Archived from the original on 2021-08-07. Retrieved 2021-08-07.

      The passing mention notes: "This is especially obvious at the recent 5th Shanghai Pet Fair in early March, where over 20 pure-breed cats were the highlight at the World Cat Pageant organized by the Cat Aficionado Association (CAA), China's largest cats registry."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Cat Aficionado Association ( simplified Chinese: 北京市保护小动物协会爱猫分会; traditional Chinese: 北京市保護小動物協會愛貓分會) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 09:54, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Cunard: Thank you for taking the time to find these sources. Although not a requirement, it would be nice if the article was updated to include some of these sources so for readers it would be verifiably notable, and it doesn't inadvertently get nominated for deletion again at some point in the future. The logo may be on the verge of deletion (see discussion) due to the inability to verify its origin. Does the CAA have a website or other materials that could be used to source an accurate logo? -- Elephanthunter ( talk) 19:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
I added the sources to the article. I cannot find a website for the Cat Aficionado Association and cannot find anything to verify that File:CAA international logo for distribution.jpg was created by the Cat Aficionado Association, so I agree with the current consensus that the image is unverified. Cunard ( talk) 04:44, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 20:22, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep - By the additional sources added. ( WP:HEY) Suriname0 ( talk) 14:01, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:06, 21 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. MBisanz talk 18:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Yurii Barybin

Yurii Barybin (  | 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 sound engineer, not covered under WP:NMUSIC. Fails WP:GNG. None of the sources currently in the article help. Mottezen ( talk) 00:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mottezen ( talk) 00:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Mottezen ( talk) 00:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Mottezen ( talk) 00:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Thank you for your comment. I randomly clinked on a bunch into the articles at Category:American audio engineers, and indeed, most of them don't have the sources to meet WP:GNG already in their article. It might be that audio-engineers don't attract that much attention for working with stars. I think the solution to this is either to propose creating a special inclusion criteria for talented technicians working with stars, or begin a large purge of audio engineer articles from Wikipedia. Mottezen ( talk) 04:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
I found more sources. This one is about a master class in 2013: https://happymagazine.com.ua/sobitiya/kak-proshel-master-klass-saund-prodyusera-yuriya-barybina/ Another one: https://glamurchik.tochka.net/248190-yuriy-barybin-zvukorezhisser-odna-iz-klyuchevykh-figur-v-komande-artista/ The latter doesn't look reliable though. Therefore, I'm voting for a Weak Keep. Dr.KBAHT ( talk) 04:19, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
I fixed the broken links, added the patent source and the one about the Burning Man festival. Dr.KBAHT ( talk) 02:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk) 00:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 02:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I always feel bad supporting the deletion of long articles, but the problem here is that after you've gone through the article all you know is that he's a person doing a job. The famous people he's worked with don't matter, because notability isn't acquired by association. What we're left with is just someone doing his job, and you're not notable just for doing your job. This page would be better if rendered down to bullet points and moved to LinkedIn, which is where I suspect it really belongs. The closest this guy comes to having done something notable is his work on in-ear technology, but even on this there's no obvious novelty or notability. Yes, he got the first Ukrainian act to use in-ears, but that's not per se that notable. Whilst the recent additions of more references have attempted to be helpful, they unfortunately emphasise the key point: he's just a guy, doing a job. He may be respected by his peers, but if that were the criterion for notability I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that most Wikipedia editors would qualify for their own articles immediately. Sorry, but this doesn't belong here. RomanSpa ( talk) 09:31, 21 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 merge to COVID-19 pandemic in Russia. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:01, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply

COVID-19 pandemic in North Asia

COVID-19 pandemic in North Asia (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All of North Asia is in Russia, so this article seems redundant since COVID-19 pandemic in Russia exists. Velayinosu ( talk) 01:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Velayinosu ( talk) 01:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Velayinosu ( talk) 01:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Velayinosu ( talk) 01:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:35, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 02:58, 21 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 12:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Chimeric cytoplasmic capping-prone phage polymerase expression system

Chimeric cytoplasmic capping-prone phage polymerase expression system (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prosetta and may be a repeat nomination of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Synthetic_gene_therapy, which was deleted. This article is about a product/service developed by Eukarÿs, a French biotechnology company. The company only has one product, which is the subject of this article. Few secondary sources exist about this, and the ones I've found are not independent. The article appears to be written by someone affiliated with Inserm. Some people at Inserm were involved in developing/researching the C3P3 system, [8] and the company's scientific advisory board has someone who was the CEO of Inserm, [9] so this article may not have been independently written. The author has not written anything else but did create the redirect C3P3, which was previously deleted as a result of the aforementioned deletion nomination. Velayinosu ( talk) 02:37, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Velayinosu ( talk) 02:37, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Velayinosu ( talk) 02:37, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply

The Bushranger, Pontificalibus, Agricolae, Arthistorian1977, and Maury Markowitz, you each participated in the previous deletion nomination, so you may want to comment here. Velayinosu ( talk) 00:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - same product marketing under a new name, with nothing added to demonstrate notability overlooked in original process. Of the 9 referenced sources, 7 of them are directly attributable to the same person, either in his role as research scientist whose team developed the approach or as CEO of the company marketing it. Of the other two, one is foundational, predating the technique's development by a quarter century. The other is an abstract or agenda of a scientific meeting I have been unable to find online, but as it predates the formal publication of the approach by three years (and apparently predates them coming up with their cutesy name for it), it can only be a presentation by the developer (which wouldn't be WP:RS even were it independent). Notability requires significant coverage by independent reliable sources, and we appear to have no single instance of that here. Agricolae ( talk) 19:34, 22 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 12:53, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Zaner Group

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Kstern ( talk) 02:10, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 02:17, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 02:17, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. While I believe business profiles can be used for confirming some details such as the number of employees and establishment date and the like, they can't be responsible for verifying notability, and two of the three sources in the article are business profiles while the other is a primary source. No notability proven here. Just another company that exists. Waddles  🗩  🖉 17:09, 21 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. Consensus is that it's a hoax. Not sure how to add it to the hoax list, but happy to undelete for anyone who wants to move it there...? ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 03:59, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Eduardo Corrochio

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

Hoax/invented article Andrew Kuchling ( talk) 01:27, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply

The article gives no sources, and I've been unable to confirm most of the claims it makes.

  • Google web search for "Eduardo Corrochio" only finds references that are mirrors or translations of this Wikipedia article. So do searches for his purported teacher "Damiano Tutador".
  • Two other names in the article, "Henry Rogers" and "Bernie Howard", are more common and harder to search for, but I can't find any indication of tap dancers with those names. [ A US Library of Congress article on tap dance doesn't mention any of these names.
  • The NYT archive doesn't contain either "Eduardo Corrochio" or "Damiano Tutador". "Bernie Howard" appears once, in a 1974 article as having been arrested for computer fraud.
  • Worldcat.org and Abebooks.com show no copies of Corrochio's claimed autobiography, "Soul of a Tap Dancer".
  • Google Books only finds references in three recent humour books that might be machine-generated.
  • If you look at the earliest version of the article, it references an episode of Seinfeld where "Elaine makes up an elaborate story that she once dated a matador from Spain named Eduardo Corrochio."
  • This article was created in 2005, fairly early in Wikipedia's history. Much editing has been automatic, adding categories or links, but none of these edits have substantially altered the claimed facts from that initial version. That seems unlikely if this is an actual person.

Andrew Kuchling ( talk) 01:45, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:10, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:10, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:10, 21 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_August_21&oldid=1041471087"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 20 August 22 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep per both WP:SNOW and WP:BEFORE ( non-admin closure). St★lwart 111 02:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Mary Totah

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

Contested prod. Original editor claims referenced obituary is evidence of notability. As written, being a prioress of an abbey in and of itself is not notable. Article should have at least some mention of what makes her wiki worthy and right now, I don’t see anything that distinguishes her from any other nun in the same position. Edit summary indicates obit is evidence of notability n. I’ve seen obituaries that talk only about how the person was a little league coach, Boy Scout den mother, volunteered at their house of worship. A newspaper writing an obituary (and I mean not the paid kind) in and of itself does not make you notable. If this obituary discussed notable parts of this woman’s life, it should be in the article. And said obituary requires a subscription so I am unable to verify as I am unwilling to subscribe. BostonMensa ( talk) 22:58, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:01, 22 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:HEYMAN, though the Times obit (unlike many other obits) is pretty much a pass for notability anyway: the creating editor has now added two further sources, and the one which is not firewalled has great scope for expanding the article. It's pity they didn't add these sources, and expand the article from them, earlier: I can see that categories were deleted because they weren't supported by content, although the new Catholic Herald article supports them. Clearly notable. Pam D 10:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Original editor is right. Unpaid obit in international newspaper is strong evidence of notability. pburka ( talk) 13:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep - BostonMensa, how about you withdraw this so we can all move on? St Anselm ( talk) 15:30, 22 August 2021 (UTC) reply
You should be able to read the Telegraph and The Times obits in ProQuest via the Wikipedia library https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/partners/82/, they're the first two hits when I search for her name Piecesofuk ( talk) 16:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Piecesofuk: Thanks for the reminder. Article now enhanced from the Times obit. Pam D 18:05, 22 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • I am sad that I had to work so hard to have an article improved. And while I will not do as St. Anselm requested amd withdraw this, I am glad the article has improved and if people who know more about both Mary Torah and religion in general believe she is wiki worthy, I will not contest the decision to keep the article. BostonMensa ( talk) 18:53, 22 August 2021 (UTC) reply
What nonsense. You don't appear to have learned anything from this episode. In my experience, when you are in the wrong it is best to accept it with good grace and move on. Philafrenzy ( talk) 19:51, 22 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 Draftify. Vanamonde ( Talk) 09:33, 30 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Khin Oo Hlaing

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

I don’t think being on an advisory board to the State Administrative Council automatically confers notability, and I can’t find multiple reliable sources with in depth coverage to support this BLP in English. There may be appropriate Burmese sources to support a GNG pass. The single source currently in the article is just a passing mention. Mccapra ( talk) 22:11, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra ( talk) 22:11, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Mccapra ( talk) 22:11, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete – while being a member of the State Administration Council itself would arguably result in an NPOL pass, I agree that being a member of an advisory board isn't enough since it apparently lacks any sort of executive, legislative, or judicial authority. There's not enough to meet the GNG, either: my searches in English and Burmese find nothing beyond trivial single-sentence mentions. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 00:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - meets neither WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 02:47, 22 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Drafty newly created Advisory Board is a state level office, a member of the AB is an advisor to the state, which is equivalent to a presidential advisor per 2008 Constitution of Myanmar. Clearly passes WP:NPOL. No one objected at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Htein Lin (colonel). However she fails WP:GNG because she has only one source. So I suggest to move this into the draft until available more source. I'll vote when I found more source in Burmese. Thanks Taung Tan ( talk) 05:20, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep or Drafty I only found her new position in very recent Burmese sources that she was appointed one of the eight members of Legal Committee for the ICJ Rohingya genocide case, a state level government committee which was previously led by detained State Counselor Aung San Suu Kyi. I've expanded the article. [1]. I'm not sure for WP:GNG requirement. So let other editors decide. Taung Tan ( talk) 05:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • I think the position on the ICJ case suggests that there will be more source material soon, so draftifying might be the best course; of course, even if deleted, the article can always be recreated when more material appears. I note in passing that the advisory board neither has an article of its own nor receives mention in the article on the State Administration Council at the present time... which makes it pretty hard to judge whether advisory board membership confers notability. Furius ( talk) 01:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Drafity until enough sources are found. Htanaungg ( talk) 11:11, 26 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. RL0919 ( talk) 23:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Vitruvian Park

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

How does this meet WP:N? Good amount of coverage, but not enough to meet GNG. Boleyn ( talk) 13:54, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:20, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:55, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 22:00, 21 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 23:53, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Cartes du Ciel

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

I couldn't establish that there was enough coverage or significance to meet WP:N. Boleyn ( talk) 13:17, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:19, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:19, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:49, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 21:59, 21 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. Argument to redirect is weakened by the absence of any mention at the proposed target. Vanamonde ( Talk) 09:34, 30 August 2021 (UTC) reply

BIG Television Awards

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

Unnotable award show and doesn't meet WP:ORG Princepratap1234 ( talk) 13:37, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:38, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:38, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Locomotive207: The sources you have given, are of BIG Star Entertainment Awards not of BIG Television Awards.Both are different awards. Princepratap1234 ( talk) 07:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Princepratap1234: Gee, that sure is confusing. Thanks for letting me know.-- 🌀 Locomotive207- talk 🌀 13:30, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:47, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 21:59, 21 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. RL0919 ( talk) 23:40, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Santadas Kathiababa

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

This biography has been moved from mainspace to draft and back again several times in recent months, and various editors have worked on it, but it still has no references. I’ve looked myself but there are too many possible false matches for me to properly understand, and I don’t see anything that looks like reliable independent sources to support this content. There may well be good sources in Bengali or other languages I can’t access, and if so I hope someone will add them. There’s no point in draftifying this yet again - it needs to be either properly sourced or deleted. Mccapra ( talk) 21:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mccapra ( talk) 21:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Mccapra ( talk) 21:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mccapra ( talk) 21:09, 21 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) 17:33, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Koffa Kobort

AfDs for this article:
Koffa Kobort (  | 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:NFOOTY as he has only (supposedly) played in amateur competitions. Fails WP:GNG as I can't find any significant non-routine coverage, other than this interview. Nehme 1499 20:48, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme 1499 20:48, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme 1499 20:48, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Nehme 1499 20:48, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nehme 1499 20:49, 21 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. – bradv 🍁 01:59, 4 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Travel Radar

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

Article for a non-notable magazine that heavily relies on primary sources, mentions of citations in news articles, and basic references that don't verify notability. Fails WP:NMAG. Waddles  🗩  🖉 19:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Waddles  🗩  🖉 19:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Waddles  🗩  🖉 19:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I oppose the deletion of this stub. Whilst I do not believe qualifiable for a page I think as per Wikipedia:NMAG a stub is suitable. "This suggested guideline covers the kinds of periodicals that are formally published, that is they (usually after 1974) have an ISSN code, are circulated in libraries or other reference sources, and (usually or often) appear in paper." -- publication meets this ISSN criteria.
The citations clearly show a referenced ISSN - not an easy process for publishers to go through - media interest (quoted/primary source for a Business Insider Journalist and an interview with Founder) and event coverage provided provided the organisation - including by Inmarsat
Very similar to other magazines of similar notability Airways Magazine and ch-aviation which have passed review with maintenance message for additional citation addition.
Suggestion: Oppose deletion and keep stub with maintenance message. Further citations from Editors encouraged to enhance notability but does not qualify for upright deletion due to meeting basic criteria
A quick citation search using buttons above brings back a Google Search Knowledge-Graph and listing as a publisher on Google News. Two accreditations showing search worthiness. A Google Trend search also shows the entity is highly searched.
LukeWWF ( talk) 19:16, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note to closer LukeWWF was the creator of this article. Newshunter12 ( talk) 14:38, 3 September 2021 (UTC) reply
User:MilborneOne, don't you think the references qualify it for stub status? See Wikipedia:Stub: "A stub is an article deemed too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject."
'Many such similar online magazines' include Airways Magazine, ch-aviation and Aviation Week & Space Technology all which qualify for inclusion. I don't think Travel Radar is any different -- if anything the references of notability is stronger.
LukeWWF ( talk) 10:11, 22 August 2021 (UTC) reply
@ LukeWWF: Stub articles should follow all guidelines that non-stubs do. Stubs aren't for small, non-notable topics, they're just a class of article that are written short. Waddles  🗩  🖉 15:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC) reply
@ WaddlesJP13: Yes I am aware of the requirements for notability and as per the citations and precedent set by other stubs on Wiki, I think the article is more than sufficient to stay. My point was the article is not as long as a full length article but what is there meets notbaility and general Wiki requirements in my opinion.
As mentioned please view similar stubs Airways Magazine, ch-aviation and Aviation Week & Space Technology which set this precedent. Hopefully you can see why my opposition.
LukeWWF ( talk) 19:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC) reply
@ LukeWWF: Those articles have many similar problems and could also be facing deletion soon, as seen by their notability, COI, and primary source tags at the top. If many articles similarly violate the same guidelines that doesn't give this one an exception. Waddles  🗩  🖉 19:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC) reply
@ WaddlesJP13: Thanks for your reply and thoughts Waddles. I was suggesting an alternative resolution to deletion - in that the article remains but with the tags staying and editors encouraged to improve the piece: More experienced editors will be able to better citate I am sure.
In the case of my examples, they faced a similar problem (AfD), but the tags was the chosen resolution and they've been like that since pre-2014; So quite a while! An Administrator has also worked to improve one of them which also sets a good example of an alternative. Just trying to think of alternatives as basic notability is there, and I believe strongly it meets criteria for inclusion.
Would you be willing to consider this as an alternative resolution than a harsh delete?
LukeWWF ( talk) 19:29, 22 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • I consider this page we have to keep it as this page is impacting socially to explore and discover new ways to improve our society in terms of travel, activities, experiences & marketing.
KilianPerez99 ( talk) 08:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC) — KilianPerez99 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
@ KilianPerez99: That's not a valid reason to keep an article. Can you explain how is it "impacting socially to explore and discover new ways to improve our society in terms of travel, activities, experiences & marketing"? That sounds a bit promotional. Waddles  🗩  🖉 15:13, 25 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) 17:33, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Airolam Limited

Airolam Limited (  | 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. Reference 2 (as of the nomination) is clearly marked as a press release, and I have doubts over the reliability of plyreporter.com - see the blatant promotion in the last paragraph of ref 3, and the fact that they appear to offer paid advertising. I can't see any other sources on Google that would establish notability, there is a lot of trivial coverage (listings of information, etc). Pahunkat ( talk) 19:06, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Pahunkat ( talk) 19:06, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Currently not notable, as the cited publications are largely industry talk-sheets. If/when the company is listed and has attained wider coverage in the national press, we can re-create this article, but for now notability has not been reached. I also want to say that I am very uncomfortable with the history of the editor who created this article: there is a faint whiff of commercial interest in this editor's previous attempts at article creation, so it is difficult for me to AGF. RomanSpa ( talk) 21:10, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, no evidence of notability or any signs of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. As such, it's not even worth moving to draft space. Sionk ( talk) 23:12, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:58, 22 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. Even recognizing the discussion was not properly transcluded until 21 August, the participation was robust (five unique contributors) and every participant except the nominator has argued for a keep based on WP:NPOL. (non-admin closure) Enos733 ( talk) 03:23, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Dennis J. Kearney

Dennis J. Kearney (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
It is not obvious from that description in the notability guidelines. The footnote seems to say state legislator is a rule of thumb, it is described as "secondary," but the person must still meet general notability guidelines. Which Kearney does not. There are about 7,300 elected state legislators in the United States. I have rarely seen a wikipedia article for somebody notable solely for having been a state legislator. -- M.boli ( talk) 02:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The politician notability guidelines are infact suggesting that not only all 7,300 current state legislators are notable, but every single person who has ever held such a position. That may in fact be ludicrous, but the current rule we follow is whenever we come across an article on any such person we keep it. To change this, you will need consensus to change to notability rules for politicians. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 22:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:55, 22 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:55, 22 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 23:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply

10K Naira

10K Naira (  | 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:NCORP. There are two refs given on the article and I can't see any others on Google. The Guardian reference is churnalism that consists entirely of the founder's comments on the company, making it a primary source. The Vanguard reference is about the same. Given that as of the vanguard article (31 July 2021) the company was yet to be created, I think that this is WP:TOOSOON. Pahunkat ( talk) 17:22, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Pahunkat ( talk) 17:22, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:57, 22 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. Inclusion at IMDB is not evidence of notability, as it is a comprehensive database which includes user-generated data. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 17:32, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply

The Babysitter (2008 film)

The Babysitter (2008 film) (  | 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:NFILM lacks coverage on reliable sources. Tulkijasi ( talk) 16:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tulkijasi ( talk) 16:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. There's probably hundreds of horror movies titled "The Babysitter", which is why I'm not finding any references that verify notability for this particular one, even when using extra keywords such as "2008". Waddles  🗩  🖉 17:34, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Short film demonstrates notability: See inclusion on IMDB https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1198187/. Director is also a notable figure. I will edit this article to a good standard but I think the outcome here should be to keep it; Despite it being written poorly at present. Also going to tag with Notability/Citation needed tag.
LukeWWF ( talk) 11:55, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. There seems to be no coverage for this short film. Notability is not inherited by them being involved with the film, it just gives a higher chance of coverage. However this is pretty much kind of par for the course with short films, even if they star or were worked on by notable people. Short films typically don't get attention unless they are very lucky or extremely high profile. A good example of this would be that it's not uncommon for short films nominated for an Academy Award to fly under the radar until said nomination to the final ballot, at which point the coverage comes pouring in. Having an IMDb profile doesn't count as the film being notable, as it's a routine database listing. Generally the only thing that a film has to do to be on IMDb is exist and the oversight for that website is loose enough to where hoaxes have been uploaded on multiple occasions. It's not limited to minor films either - years ago a woman managed to add herself to the cast of Captain America: Winter Soldier as "She-Hulk". ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:59, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • I'm not scolding you - I hope that this doesn't come across as that. I made the same mistakes with notability you are here (I also made mistakes with tone, sourcing, and so on), so don't take it badly - we all learn "on the job" here, so to speak. These training modules may be helpful - they're written for students, but they do have a nice amount of knowledge in them. :) ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:01, 23 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) 17:31, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Masimedia

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

Question mark over notability for over 10 years and I can see why. I have not found anything to suggest this could pass WP:GNG. This company barely even seems to be known about, with just 25 pageviews in the last 3 months. Bungle ( talk • contribs) 16:30, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bungle ( talk • contribs) 16:30, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bungle ( talk • contribs) 16:30, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:57, 22 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) 17:31, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Ankit Jaiswal

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

Semi-pro/amateur footballer with barely any coverage. The one cited source is a squad list mention, which is insufficient for WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE search yielded nothing better. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:52, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:54, 21 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) 17:30, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Miko Ardianto

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

A player with no apparent senior professional appearances, so not passing WP:NFOOTBALL. Also no evidence of WP:GNG. Indonesian searches of Miko Ardianto and Miko Ardiyanto yielded nothing better than pre-match squad listings and match reports for U21 fixtures that only offer a passing mention at best. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:25, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:25, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:25, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:28, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
They were relegated from the top tier in 2009-10 so Persebaya were in the 2010–11 Liga Indonesia Premier Division, which was the second tier and not professional. I also can't see any GNG from the sources that you have provided, which would be required as squad lists and passing mentions in match reports are not usually enough. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:55, 28 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) 17:30, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Sir Syed Institute of Learning & Motivation, Battagram

AfDs for this article:
Sir Syed Institute of Learning & Motivation, Battagram (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously deleted following a AFD which closed as delete over notability/sourcing concerns. As far as I can find via Google this hasn't changed, and it still fails WP:NORG. -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 15:15, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 15:15, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 15:15, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Sir the big source for this article is Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Abbottabad, which i already placed in the reference tab. Please review again. Anis Ur Rahman Anas 16:01, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to University of Oxford. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 17:30, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply

The Oxford Blue (newspaper)

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

Fails the WP:GNG. Coverage mostly—

  • is not independent of the subject (e.g., coverage of itself), or
  • is not significant (e.g., merely citing the Blue in passing).

It does not readily appear that this can be rectified. A Google News search for ‘The Oxford Blue’ mostly brings up unrelated restaurant reviews; adding ‘“publication”’ brings up one non-trivial mention, concerning the receipt of an award, which hardly seems enough.

The article also fails the subject-specific guidelines.

  • ‘[W]ell-known and significant journalism award or hono[u]r’: as far as I can tell, the Oxford Blue has won one award (‘best new publication’ from the Student Publication Association.) The award must be ‘well-known and significant’. A Google search for ‘"best new publication" "award"’ brings up only one editorial from another Oxford publication mentioning the award, suggesting it’s not terribly well-known or significant.
  • ‘Some sort of historic purpose or…significant history’ (through RSes): few RSes seem to even mention the history of the publication let alone non-trivially.
  • ‘Authoriative or influential in their subject area’ (through RSes): I can’t find anything to this effect.
  • ‘Frequently cited by other reliable sources’: two articles seem to have been widely reported on, viz., the Peter King child pornography case, and the arrest of Dirk Obbink for stealing ancient papyrus fragments (no RS is given—merely an ‘EXCLUSIVE’ article from the Oxford Blue, but the Guardian said this so I’ll insert it later).
  • ‘Significant publication in…non-trivial niche market’: not sure whether student journalism really counts as a non-trivial niche market, but there don’t seem to be RSes to back this up either.

Even if at least one of these were met (frequent citation seems the closest), the general problem that no RSes seem to actually say anything non-trivial or encyclopaedic about the publication remains. The main sourced section is a recitation of previous reporting—perhaps relevant to other articles but not really encyclopedic on a page about the paper itself. There are also some not particularly encyclopaedic minutiae about internal organisation. This leaves very little. Docentation ( talk) 15:12, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Wikipedia:Notability (media) is an essay and does not seem to have widespread support given how (in my experience) rarely it is used. WP:ORG or WP:GNG is the standard that should apply here. (This is not to say that the subject meets that standard.) 15 ( talk) 16:22, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    • You are quite right. I seem to have misread it as a policy despite it being clearly labelled otherwise. The GNG it is. Docentation ( talk) 16:32, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
      WP:NMEDIA's status isn't particularly clear; there was recently a failed attempt to make it an official guideline, and it failed because there was a bunch of opposition to what it attempted to do for radio stations, but the reception for the newspapers portion was more favorable. IAR, I consider it a reasonable standard. {{u| Sdkb}}  talk 19:17, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Possible sources: Blog post by the Association for Research into Crimes against Art. inpublishing coverage of the Society of Editors award. I would have thought otherwise, but this might be a borderline keep case, mainly hinging on the quality of the ARCA blog post - being hosted on blogspot doesn't make the source unusable, given that it is its official one. 15 ( talk) 16:57, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to University of Oxford per WP:TOOSOON, and maybe add a sentence on it there. Some student newspapers are notable and others aren't, which leads to many borderline cases like this. If this newspaper survives and grows, it may become notable (it's Oxford, after all, so I'd expect it to garner more media attention than your average community college), but right now, it just doesn't have a significant enough history to warrant an entry in the world's enduring record of notable organizations. Regarding the sources, I'm willing to look beyond the informal blog styling of the ARCA post and say it counts (barely; Association for Research into Crimes against Art has a page but it's pretty shaky itself), but for InPublishing, it begins "As reported by Claire Meadows on the Society of Editors website", and the Society of Editors sponsored the award the paper won, so it's not fully independent. If this was an established publication with a long history, I'd say sure, let's look the other way on the shakiness of the sources and just let it stay, but I can't do that here. Redirecting will allow it to be more easily resurrected if it gets coverage in the future and follows our normal practice for non-notable college publications. {{u| Sdkb}}  talk 19:39, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: that ARCA report is a good find. I agree with Sdkb that it’s somewhat borderline. That said, even if we do count it, it’s only one source. An article with just that for non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources would not I think really be encyclopedic. There’s already a paragraph on the main University of Oxford page on student newspapers and it would make sense to mention the Blue (regardless of the outcome here actually). Docentation ( talk) 13:56, 22 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - some more possible sources: Geddes Prize award and The Times article on sensitivity reading. Amsmailes ( talk) 11:49, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    @ Amsmailes: I can't get past the Times paywall. How significant is the coverage there? {{u| Sdkb}}  talk 15:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    @ Sdkb: The article covers proposed sensitivity reading from Oxford SU with reference to all three papers in Oxford (Cherwell, The Oxford Student, and The Oxford Blue) and reflects a comment requested from the Blue at the end. {{u| Amsmailes}}  talk 18:28, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    Neither link works for me: could you check them please? Jonathan A Jones ( talk) 20:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    @ Jonathan A Jones: I’ve fixed the links in the comment. There was a pipe when there shouldn’t have been.
    I don’t think these get over the GNG line to be honest. There’s only one mention (‘Cherwell and The Oxford Blue, a new independent website, said they had not been contacted by the students’ union about the plans.’) I consider this trivial: analogously, if a newspaper report concerning a government plan to censor all newspapers were to contain a brief comment by an otherwise obscure local newspaper at the end, that report would not constitute non-trivial coverage of the local newspaper for GNG purposes. As for the prize, well, SEH awarded it and SEH reported on it. Docentation ( talk) 22:47, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to University of Oxford per WP:TOOSOON, as suggested by User:Sdkb. It caught my eye immediately as of doubtful notability and a probable COI. Deb ( talk) 10:58, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to University of Oxford: I'm familiar with the newspaper (as an Oxonian) and this article is just PR spin. The Oxford Blue wants to portray itself as a competitor to Cherwell and The Oxford Student (and its reputation among students is that its main distinguishing feature is its dissenting social conservativism), but it's just not got the history, credibility or acceptance. The article boasts that it's the "first digital-only student newspaper in Oxford", when this is actually just a reframing of a big reason why it's not as respectable (no print copy distributed to colleges like the others, and hell even the The Oxymoron).
    The article fails GNG and the essay NMEDIA (which I'll take as at least reflecting rough common practice) and it'd be better TNT'd even if it later becomes notable. The creator violated WP:COIEDIT: you should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly. Redirecting to University of Oxford is just barely appropriate, I think, due to the brief mention there and as this is commonly done for student newspapers.
    To go through the case for notability thoroughly, the BBC doesn't seem to cite The Oxford Blue as the article claims (perhaps it used to appear under the local news links section), but The Guardian does here and here. This Society of Editors award is genuine. The Geddes Prize above is internal to Oxford. The ARCA blog is nonsense. Only the award(s) are in-depth, and not sufficient for NMEDIA#1, while NMEDIA#4 is not passed by just a handful of recent citations and claims of NMEDIA#2,3,5 are thoroughly implausible given the recency of the publication. For GNG, again it's a fail, not enough coverage of the publication's history, founding and practices. Definitely too soon and the creator is clearly an EiC from their username and disclosed COI so not here for the right reasons. — Bilorv ( talk) 12:16, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    its main distinguishing feature is its dissenting social conservativism The fact that we have no source to establish this key fact is as good a reason as any this isn't ready for mainspace yet. Thanks for your insights, {{u| Sdkb}}  talk 15:14, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    I don’t really think that the considerations in the first few sentences really come into this. A newspaper could be digital only, mostly known for social conservatism, and everything else you say, and still meet the GNG. Close observers (e.g. of typography) might say that the Mekong Review tries (and fails) to imitate the style of the London Review of Books: but both are still notable. (It also occurs to me that the case against deletion is stronger on WP:NMEDIA than it is on the GNG.) That said I agree with your analysis of sources, and there’s a good case here that even were it notable one would be better off starting again. Docentation ( talk) 20:08, 24 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. RL0919 ( talk) 20:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Nathan Reiber

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

Doesn't appear to have any notability outside their connection with the Surfside condominium collapse. I would have simply redirected there, but the article creator, in their initial edit summary said, "for the record, I understand if anyone has WP:BLP1E concerns about this one. I wouldn't oppose testing it at AfD". Appears to be a case of WP:BIO1E. Onel5969 TT me 15:02, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:10, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:10, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:10, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:10, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. He did get an obituary in Miami Herald in 2015: [2]. Not seeing anything else outside the new coverage related to the accident, but it does invalidate the nom concerns, I think. PS. As for the proper vote, I am on the fence. Without the obit I'd lean towards delete, with it I think this is very borderline.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:59, 22 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I think he was notable as a real estate developer even before the building collapsed. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 19:22, 22 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Years before the Florida incident, there was also reporting of his resignation from the Law Society of Upper Canada (presumably knowing he would be disbarred otherwise), and a decade later his tax fines. I added references to the article. Nfitz ( talk) 19:46, 22 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Neutral - As User:onel5969 noted; I created this page knowing the argument for notability was pretty marginal. I think it's reasonable to call this article WP:BIO1E or WP:RECENTISM. That said, this guy does seem to have been linked to several marginally notably events and strung together, they might make him meet WP:GNG. For the record, I thought it was interesting that the Surfside Condo building was built by this colorful and vaguely criminal character. I was a bit curious whether there might be some linkage between the character and the collapse. Having learned more about the incident since I started this article, I'm guessing the collapse won't ultimately be blamed on malconstruction or by extension Reiber. NickCT ( talk) 19:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep he had an obituary and was mentioned in the news before the collapse, I see enough GNG even before the collapse. -- hroest 16:01, 25 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) 17:29, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Sky Hawk International Public School & College, Battagram

AfDs for this article:
Sky Hawk International Public School & College, Battagram (  | 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:NORG, only sources in the article are a index of schools and a link to Google Maps, and I cannot find any other sources online -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 14:40, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 14:40, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 14:40, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Hi sir, please review this article, i hope now it is fully ready, also a great reference Anis Ur Rahman Anas 14:55, 21 August° 2021 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 17:28, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply

System Recordings

System Recordings (  | 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:CORP or WP:GNG. Boleyn ( talk) 14:15, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 15:18, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 15:18, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:23, 21 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 Barbie Maan#Discography as an WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 ( ICE T • ICE CUBE) 16:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Teri Gali

Teri Gali (  | 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:NSONG Princepratap1234 ( talk) 14:13, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Princepratap1234 ( talk) 14:22, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Princepratap1234 ( talk) 14:22, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:09, 21 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 13:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Kim Siever

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

Local journalist (blogger?) and unsuccessful political candidate that does not pass WP:GNG, WP:JOURNALIST, or WP:NPOL. Issue isn't COI (disclosed), it's the overall notability of the subject. Many references are to articles by the subject - this isn't a substitute for *independent* articles *about* the subject. Madg2011 ( talk) 13:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Madg2011 ( talk) 13:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Madg2011 ( talk) 13:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Madg2011 ( talk) 13:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Madg2011 ( talk) 13:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
For whatever it’s worth, this article was submitted for AfC review and was independently assessed and approved. — Kmsiever ( talk) 17:49, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Looking at online sources only, the only reliable sources in the article are passing mentions of the subject or links to the subject's social media feeds. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The rest are primary sources. I'm sure the offline sources are no better. The fact that the primary editor has been the subject himself does not help the situation. At this point, as the subject is running in the upcoming Canadian federal election, this amounts to undue weight on the candidate. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 23:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. People don't get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they have not won, so neither running for city council in 2001 nor his current candidacy get him in the door at all — and actors are not "inherently" notable just because it's possible to use IMDb and the self-published primary source websites of theatre companies as technical verification that acting roles have been had, but require evidence of distinction (such as a Canadian Screen Award nomination, or other reliably sourced evidence of the significance of said acting roles). Obviously no prejudice against recreation (with better sources) on or after September 20 if he wins a seat in Parliament (spoiler alert: very unlikely, given that he's running in Alberta but not as a Conservative), but nothing here is already grounds for a Wikipedia article about him to exist today. And yeah, the fact that he started the article himself doesn't do him any favours either (though it isn't in and of itself the killing blow.) Bearcat ( talk) 13:43, 24 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 Binance. Vanamonde ( Talk) 09:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC) reply

WazirX

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

A classic case of WP:ADMASQ. Also, it lacks WP:NPOV. - Hatchens ( talk) 12:46, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hatchens ( talk) 12:46, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment There is not even a single sentence in the article which is not referenced with WP:RS. Regarding WP:NPOV, read WP:POVDELETION, especially the last paragraph. Even if it lacks WP:NPOV that needs editing not deletion. This company is in the news recently for both good and negative reasons. Anybody can add more information if they wish. I expected issues when created this article because it was deleted earlier, but I chose to be WP:BOLD. Since this nomination is based on 'assuming bad faith' and not on notability, I don't have anything else to add. Leaving to others. - The9Man ( Talk) 13:10, 17 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Dear The9Man, you're an experienced editor with a good number of edits (as a history) under your belt. If you, yourself added a sentence - "At the point of its launch no other exchanges has this feature that helped the company to grow rapidly." [3]- which is nothing but directly contradicting the very essence of WP:NPOV. You have the right to make your assumptions and at the same time build your articles. And, so do I. Since I may make mistakes in my assumptions and to overcome this or to make it doubly sure that my tags are not affecting the pages or the editors like you - I always call for an unbiased assessment from the expert editors who have much more experience in dealing with such doubtful pages. Lately, I have done a mistake of my own in approving an article in the first place. Our job as reviewers is to learn from such mistakes and do the needful. - Hatchens ( talk) 05:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply
      • I personally have the market knowledge that P2P is the one thing that helped this company to grow fast at that point in time and they were the first. It is a FACT for me, supported with references. 1 2 Could I have used better wording? Maybe. You found this is intentional promotion? OKAY. - The9Man ( Talk) 15:29, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply
        • The9Man, thank you for sharing these links. The first carries a byline "Bloomberg Quint Brand Studio" , which clearly tells it's a sponsored post. And, the second link what you have shared is from Inc42 which is known for sharing promotional content like YourStory.com (which has been duly banned by Wikipedia). It may be FACT for you, but I regret to inform - your FACT is not a FACT as per the Wikipedia guidelines. Now, I have serious doubt on your capabilities of handling AfC reviews. - Hatchens ( talk) 18:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply
          • Okay, I messed up with the first link in a hurry that I didn't see the brand part. But I don't remember that I have seen anything regarding Inc42, please lead me there.
            I am not defending this anymore, and if the community feels the article is not notable, let it go. I am agreeing. Thank you. - The9Man ( Talk) 19:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Ping: Need unbiased experts' opinion on this AfD. Hence sending this ping -> @ Timtrent, HighKing, Nomadicghumakkad, and GermanKity:. Let there be a "general consensus". - Hatchens ( talk) 05:46, 18 August 2021 (UTC) Not a Healthy AfD Practice. In agreement with MarioGom. - Hatchens ( talk) 08:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
    Please, see WP:CANVASSING. MarioGom ( talk) 14:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Since it has been acquired by Binance, then it's better to be merged with it (if not deleted). - Hatchens ( talk) 12:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP. Also see WP:GHITS. If you can point to individual references that meet NCORP to establish notability, please post links. HighKing ++ 13:57, 24 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 13:54, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply

William Hamman

AfDs for this article:
William Hamman (  | 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 individual. Got a flutter of news coverage at the time, but isn't otherwise notable. PepperBeast (talk) 13:19, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:40, 21 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 13:53, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Gum Crossroads, Delaware

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gum_Crossroads,_Delaware&action=edit

Gum Crossroads, Delaware (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mass-produced stub with questionable GNIS source. Previously prodded with the rationale: "Gum Crossroads, Delaware" is not an unincorporated community in Delaware. It is an intersection in the middle of farmland with no houses around. An intersection is not notable. Geschichte ( talk) 13:34, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:34, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:34, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. There's a couple houses down the road, but I'm pretty sure they're just rural farm houses and not part of a community. I would say keep if there was some sort of general store or gas station with the name, a trace of a post office in this location, or any sort of small collection of houses centered around the intersection to form a legitimate community, but its just a general intersection of country roads and there's not even a label for it on Google Maps. Waddles  🗩  🖉 17:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • delete The few houses are shown in aerials to have been built in the last 25 years or so, and are jjust randowm;y shoved into the forest. Other than that quadrant, it's just farm fields. Really, the PROD message should have been cause for taking a second look rather than blindly trusting a listing. Mangoe ( talk) 18:50, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect as a useful navigational aid for Sussex County, Delaware. USGS maps say that in 1917 nothing was there, in 1944 there were a couple houses nearby, in 1992 it was the same story, and a Google satellite map from today says that there really is not anything going on at the location in question, or immediately around it. Barring anyone coming up with news sources or books mentioning the area as having had some historical significance, I am forced to conclude that -- as the kids say -- this is "literally not even a thing". jp× g 09:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete not notable Idunnox3 ( talk) 23:04, 26 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) 17:23, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply

IndieGala

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

Not a notable website to be included as a Wiki. - Iamrajdeepdas ( talk) 05:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete Per others, there is a distinct lack of indepth coverage about the company. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 21:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 10:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
We also don't Keep articles unless there are references which establish their notability according to the appropriate guidelines, which in this case is WP:NCORP. It would be very helpful and lend weight to your !vote if you can provide links to the best WP:THREE references below. HighKing ++ 11:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply
I do not have the spoons to look for hundreds of them, rate them all, and decide on which are the most important three, but it is treated as notable by assorted significant, independent, reliable, and secondary sources eg
Eurogamer eg https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2020-11-18-paradox-interactive-publisher-sale-goes-live-at-indiegala
Rock Paper Shotgun eg https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/topics/indiegala
PC Gamer eg https://www.pcgamer.com/uk/indiegala-bundle-defies-its-own-name-includes-mass-effect-2/
I can't find any other site in the 'Software digital distribution platforms' category that has more members of its Steam group than https://steamcommunity.com/groups/indiegala.
When the threat of deletion has ended, I can spend the spoons adding more references to the article. Lovingboth ( talk) 17:10, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Several sources/references have been added, the article has been slightly updated with more notable and up to date information, and it should be further updated with time, in the near future. StevenCojo ( talk) 15:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nitesh003 ( talk) 12:33, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:38, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:38, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:38, 21 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 11:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Alberto Alcázar

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

Probable autobiography with no evidence of notability found in a WP:BEFORE search. I can't find any coverage of his roles relating to composing music for these obscure indie games and I can't find any independent coverage of his career as a musician or as an actor. I can't see any criteria at WP:NACTOR or WP:NMUSICIAN that he actually meets. A lot of the references used to support notability don't mention Alcázar at all, which is bizarre. The only thing I'm not too sure about is video game composer notability standards, so I would appreciate if someone from WP:VG could weigh in and confirm whether he can be presumed notable for that, since it looks like he fails everything else. Source analysis for WP:GNG to follow. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:55, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:55, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm12851006/bio No No User-generated and unreliable, see WP:IMDB No Contains barely any info ✘ No
https://www.elperiodico.cat/ca/tele/20180226/salvados-la-sexta-retrat-gent-anonima-dese-aniversari-6649813 Yes Yes No Fails to mention him ✘ No
https://www.formulatv.com/noticias/8791/jordi-evole-la-edicion-semanal-de-salvados-dejara-de-ser-tematica/ Yes Yes No Not mentioned here ✘ No
https://www.espinof.com/la-sexta/la-curiosa-evolucion-de-salvados-en-sus-cinco-anos-de-existencia Yes Yes No No mention here either ✘ No
https://www.flickr.com/photos/nippleeatanna/ No User-generated No User-generated No ✘ No
https://pro.imdb.com/title/tt15267314 No No User-generated and unreliable, see WP:IMDB No ✘ No
https://open.spotify.com/artist/0c5Ry6QOy30kSddNs36oo5 No No Spotify is an unreliable, user-generated source No Being on Spotify doesn't indicate notability ✘ No
https://www.sevenwordsmusic.com/ No Apparently his own website No No Link doesn't work ✘ No
https://soundcloud.com/sevenwordsmusic No No SoundCloud is user-generated and largely unreliable No ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}.
Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Blocked sockmaster; see SPI. Mz7 ( talk) 04:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Response #0000 to Spiderone

Hello Spiderone, first of all; hope you're having a wonderful day and we together improve this article so it meets the Wikipedia's guidelines by far.

Regarding your comments:

  • As exposed on the article this celebrity "is better known by his nickname Seven Words"; evidence of notability could be found in a WP:BEFORE search (just unveiled his real name).
  • His roles related to composing music, his musician career and as an actor could actually be found with his real name and or nicknames (all of them are cameos playing himself as a "unkown person" but he's mentioned in the credits).
  • Not all references mention Alcázar because some of them are not for him but for mentioned items related to the subject ( Salvados, for example). I don't find that bizarre; enriches the article imo.
  • I'm sure he meets game composer and or developer notability standards exceeding aproved articles as for example bignic, "he's the Spanish Toby Fox" (as said on TV about him) with a huge influence in the Spanish indie gamedev community, less than Toby Fox but well known for a set achievements in different areas related and not related to audiovisual projects.

I've updated the source assesment table (hope you don't mind, I thought that creating another table could be confusing):

  • Deleted rows: related to Flickr (this one should not be placed in the body, my bad; just corrected that). SoundCloud, website of this celebrity and his Spotify channel are not reliable sources; they weren't trying to be, just external links related to the subject, see WP:EXT.
  • Updated second row: the celebrity is quoted several times and meets criteria at least as presumed, see WP:SIGCOV.
  • Updated fifth row: sections such as the cast list, character names, the crew lists, release dates, company credits, awards, soundtrack listing, filming locations, technical specs, alternate titles, running times, and rating certifications on IMDb could be used as reliable sources, see WP:CITEIMDB

All that said, I'll keep working on this article so we reach a consensus. KharmaJoy (Talk to KharmaJoy) 17:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Response #0001 to Spiderone

  • @ Spiderone: I apologize for modifying your table instead of creating a new one, didn't thought of it as a comment out of ignorance; my bad. I'm adding mine here, don't want to touch yours anymore (obviously) to avoid misunderstandings; you may want to roll yours back, the article has been updated so you may want to update it too.
  • Source assessment - GNG met:
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.elperiodico.cat/ca/tele/20180226/salvados-la-sexta-retrat-gent-anonima-dese-aniversari-6649813 Yes Yes Quoted several times Yes ✔ Yes
https://pro.imdb.com/title/tt15267314 Yes Yes Cast list, character names, crew lists, awards and soundtrack listings are reliables sources, see WP:CITEIMDB Yes ✔ Yes
http://www.udat.es/alberto-alcazar-bronce-en-el-regional-de-400m-vallas-con-marca-personal/ Yes Yes Independent newspaper WP:INDEPENDENT Yes ✔ Yes
https://ahoraclm.com/2018/06/02/el-talaverano-alberto-alcazar-plata-en-el-regional-de-atletismo/ Yes Yes Independent newspaper WP:INDEPENDENT Yes ✔ Yes
https://eldiadigital.es/art/297395/el-talaverano-alberto-alcazar-bronce-en-el-regional-de-400m-vallas Yes Yes Independent newspaper WP:INDEPENDENT Yes ✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}.
KharmaJoy (Talk to KharmaJoy) 20:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Collapsing discussion involving blocked socks; see SPI. Mz7 ( talk) 04:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • @ KharmaJoy: Per WP:TPO, Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning. Adding your own entries to a table someone else made counts as changing the meaning, because you are making it seem like that user said something which they didn't. It does not matter if it would be "confusing" to create your own table, you should not ever add your own content into other users' comments without their express permission. Mlb96 ( talk) 19:11, 22 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • @ Mlb96: I'm sorry, didn't thought of that table as a comment; my bad, won't happen again. User:KharmaJoy ( talk) 20:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - firstly, how is this athletics Alcázar the same person? Do you have proof of that? This looks like a case of WP:FRANKENSTEIN where a non-notable athlete and a non-notable musician are erroneously considered to be the same person. Anyway, being a regional medallist clearly fails WP:NTRACK. The musician subject to deletion is called Alberto Alcázar Martín but the athlete, subject to the sources that have recently been added is called Alberto Alcázar Casasola. See RFEA profile. This article is incredibly misleading. Are you writing an article about AAM or AAC? Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:41, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - As @ Spiderone: has pointed out "A. Alcázar Martín" is clearly not "A. Alcázar Casasola", there are records of an "A. Alcázar Martín-Casasola". Maybe the confusion came from there, maybe "Casasola" and "Martín-Casasola" are the same person; but Wikipedia isn't built upon "maybes". I'm changing my nomination on this discussion. This article started being about "A. Alcázar Martín" the indie game developer and score composer @ HelenaMCRfan: so I suggest you to do more research on that athletic Casasola if you want to write a different article about him. @ KharmaJoy: I suggest you to focus on research "Seven Words" the nickname for which Alcázar is known. GamedevExpert (Talk to GamedevExpert) 18:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock; see SPI. Mz7 ( talk) 04:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. My search comes up with nothing to establish any notability. -- MuZemike 11:26, 27 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 15:22, 3 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Barbara Sobaszkiewicz

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

Previously deleted due to failure of WP:NTENNIS and WP:GNG after the NTENNIS guidelines were revised to exclude 10k and 25k ITF wins. User:Fyunck(click) raised some excellent points in the previous discussion and, as far as I can see, absolutely nothing has happened since that makes her any more notable than she was before. No Fed Cup appearances and no coverage found in a Polish source search that would count towards GNG. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Could you comment on why "In 2013, she played for Poland at the XXVII Universiade in Kazan, Russia where she won the bronze medal in womens' doubles" is not sufficient for NTENNIS or WP:ANYBIO#1 (The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor) or #2 (The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field)? Mind you, I am not saying it should be, but it sounds "nice" for someone like me who knows nothing about this sport. I concur Polish sources have no SIGCOV of her, and I nominated her for discussion on pl wiki ( pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/biografie/2021:08:14:Barbara Kapaś). I'll report anything of interest said there, but I fully expect people to raise the same question I did (isn't "one bronze medal" an indication of notability?). For the record, I do have serious issues with spamgraphies of minor sportspeople who attracted zero attention in media and just have participated in few niche events, but then, the same is true for people in other fields too we write articles for, and just say that some niche elected politicians, CEOs or scholars are notable due to the virtue of having some particular post or such (the problem is just much more accute for sport bios, since they form what, like half of Wikipedia biographies in existence...?). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:05, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Consensus is never going to be that clear for tennis players due to the relatively low participation at AfDs. The Universiade isn't mentioned anywhere at NTENNIS so we can't say that this player meets NTENNIS even if she did win a medal. I did raise a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis but, again, participation was low so hard to draw any clear consensus. I think NTENNIS would need to be reworded to include the Universiade if we did want to go down the route of presuming notability for its participants. In my opinion, there would need to be some sort of convincing argument that most if not all players that get a medal in this student event pass GNG. With regards to ANYBIO, this is an interesting point and I don't think that it gets raised often with sportspeople. I could definitely see #1 applying for ATP Awards or WTA Awards and #2 applying for anyone in, say, the International Tennis Hall of Fame but, then again, such people almost always pass GNG anyway. It'll be interesting to see what comes back on pl.wiki in any case. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:06, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Spiderone: FYI, the pl wiki discussion was closed quickly as apparently pl wiki's equivalent of NTENNIS I was not aware of does lists winning a medal at Universiade as sufficient for notability. Knowing very little about this event I am abstaining on whether it's overly inclusive or just right; I remain concerned that there is no evidence of media coverage of her career. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:01, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Wow, that's certainly a very different NTENNIS. I would also say that winning a medal at the Youth Olympics doesn't make you automatically notable, although many such people pass GNG or NTENNIS anyway so it's a bit of a moot point. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Spiderone I don't have much of an opinion here (and in fact I am leaning to delete myself given the lack of coverage, which suggests that sadly nobody cares about the Youth Olympics outside the participants and those closely connected to them...), but I'll just note the discussion at pl wiki ended with a near universal keep. Interesting how different groups of Wikipedia volunteers arrived at different conclusions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - In looking at her article she is not even close to being notable per Tennis Project or NSPORT. I can't speak on whether she has reached GNG by some other means. Has she ever played on the WTA Circuit? No. Won a WTA tournament? No. Played in international Fed Cup? No. Perhaps entered the Olympics? No. WikiProject Tennis has a pretty low bar for automatic notability and she fails. Editor Vecihi91 has created a whole bunch of articles over the last year that have had to be deleted. This looks like another. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 08:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Five gold (and some others) medals of the Polish championship (2011-2013). [4] [5] Nedops ( talk) 09:32, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Which of the 6 criteria at WP:NTENNIS would this count towards? Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply
None of them. The world of sport does not end at these 6 criteria :) Nedops ( talk) 20:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply
The issue is that this is the second time that this player has been up for debate and still there is no evidence or even a suggestion that she might meet GNG, which is ultimately the guideline that she should meet. We have policies like NTENNIS and GNG for a reason. NTENNIS allows enough GNG-failing articles to be created as it is, I really don't see the point in lowering the bar even further. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless ( talk) 11:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Agreed. It's also a completely unreliable predictor of GNG, as is the case here. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 06:52, 1 September 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 13:51, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Manchi Rojulu Vachchaayi

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

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing was found in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites, videos, and promo material.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.-- Filmomusico ( talk) 20:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.-- Filmomusico ( talk) 20:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless ( talk) 11:23, 21 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 merge to Ellora Patnaik. ✗ plicit 13:47, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Devraj Patnaik

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

Doesn't meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Boleyn ( talk) 18:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 20:22, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless ( talk) 11:22, 21 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. Sandstein 10:12, 29 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Living presidents of India

Living presidents of India (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article appears to contravene the WP:INDISCRIMINATE policy as well as the WP:GNG guideline, being a collection of random factoids without context. There are no sources indicating that "living presidents of India" is a topic of scholarly research or interest. In other words, the topic is not notable. Surtsicna ( talk) 09:13, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna ( talk) 09:13, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna ( talk) 09:13, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
They are common because people see it done somewhere and make another such list elsewhere and nobody bothers to tackle them. They are certainly not accepted in the sense of having been approved in a discussion. We'll scrutinize each of those. Surtsicna ( talk) 09:53, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Surtsicna – I created this article, and I think that the major issue with this is sources. I have added some sources, and can add various other sources and scholarly research (if available). Also, we have these types of list for head of states for various nations (as SpacemanSpiff pointed out). We do have a silly article on List of presidents of the United States with facial hair, and was nominated for deletion 4-5 times, but was kept as it had quite number of citations and notability in some sources. Seeing the number of lists relating to U.S. presidents, I guess this list should not be deleted. I'll try to make necessary changes. Kavyansh.Singh ( talk) 09:55, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Some crap existing does not mean other crap should exist. If living or bearded US presidents are of interest to scholars, so be it; but if living presidents of India are not a subject of "significant coverage in reliable sources", there is no reason for a standalone article on that topic. Which are living and which are not can be seen from the birth and death dates in the general list anyway. Surtsicna ( talk) 10:00, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
EDIT: Also, for Living presidents of the United States and Living vice presidents of the United States Peter Ormond 💬 14:30, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Hi @ Peter Ormond – I have now added various citations to the article. With 30 citations from mostly reliable sources, I think the venerability part is not resolved. The major question for this nomination should be whether all the article titled "Living presidents/prime ministers of ...." are notable or not. If this will be deleted, I see no reason why Living presidents of the United States or Living vice presidents of the United States should not be deleted. Also, please let me know if there's any other thing that I can fix with this article. – Kavyansh.Singh ( talk) 14:15, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 10:04, 21 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 12:43, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Lexie Bigham

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

Minor actor who played small forgettable roles with the exception of one larger supporting role (but still not a leading role) in South Central. Fails the multiple significant roles portion of criteria 1 of WP:NACTOR. Does not meet any other notability criteria for actors or at WP:ANYBIO. Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable references. Fails WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 ( talk) 03:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 ( talk) 04:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 ( talk) 04:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 ( talk) 04:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 ( talk) 04:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 08:35, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 10:00, 21 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. RL0919 ( talk) 20:53, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Lascivious Biddies

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

91 results on Google. Only hits are standard databases like Allmusic and Discogs, plus sites selling their music. Found a couple newspaper articles, but they are merely PR fluff for local concerts. Seems to fail every variant of WP:NMUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 03:26, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 03:26, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 03:26, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 09:56, 21 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. RL0919 ( talk) 20:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Amber Court

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

Article on a property development in Malaysia that is packed with great detail, mostly from primary sources, and has received some mention in general sources but nothing that looks to me like it establishes notability. Similar articles could be written for tens of thousands of new buildings each year but there’s nothing really encyclopaedic about them. Mccapra ( talk) 09:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Mccapra ( talk) 09:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Mccapra ( talk) 09:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but clean up. The Wikipedia article is indeed a rambling over-detailed account of the various developments around 'Samaworld' should probably be half the current length. But the Amber Court development seems to have developed a reputation for its poor state of repair and possible haunting. After all there are a couple of news articles, a book and a German TV documentary about it. Sionk ( talk) 18:04, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: The developments around Genting Highlands are not like any others. More costly civil engineering work is needed because of the difficult mountain-landscape and climate. The companies working on these projects are from all over the world, hence the international attention at the time. SamaWorld is directly connected with Amber Court. The SamaWorld development had strong media attention at the time, but not so much today (but it is still relevant). Amber Court gained a lot of fame on social media over the last 10 years. There exist many videos with millions of views from "YouTubers" around the world. It's the main location for the movie "Haunted Hotel" which boosted the attention in Asia. Last year the Galileo documentary was broadcasted in Germany and my German article about Amber Court was accepted to Wikipedia. Amber Court has constant media attention in Malaysia too (as seen in the article references), and is included in the List of reportedly haunted locations. I tried not to focus on the "haunted topic" because Wikipedia should be neutral (and we all know that it's nonsense). I wouldn't call my sources "primary" because nearly all of them are from well-known newspapers (I think blueprints, statistics, etc are called primary). Thanks + greetings -- 126Edward ( talk) 22:49, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 09:46, 21 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 Sanno Institute of Management. With no references and an external link to the university's website, there is no content to merge. ✗ plicit 12:58, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Jiyugaoka Sanno College

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

I wasn't convinced this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn ( talk) 17:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 20:20, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:07, 21 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) 04:01, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Will Powers (doctor)

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

An interesting combination of an advertisement for a physician sourced to press releases, and a tragic account of the death of two cats. Neither half is encyclopedic. Originally submitted as draft with the title Will Powers (physician), and quite reasonably declined twice by two different reviewers. Resubmitted a third term (with a slightly variant title) and also entered directly into mainspace. The photo was taken by the contributor of the article. NOT ADVERTISEMENT and NOT NEWS. DGG ( talk ) 00:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 00:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 00:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 00:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for failing notability guidelines, as well as per nom. -- SilverTiger12 ( talk) 01:57, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment hi I created the page after attempting to create a draft and feeling that the draft got unfairly declined. I don't believe I used any press releases in this article, only sources considered reputable on Wikipedia. Please explain which sources are inappropriate for Wikipedia, and which aspects of the page are not notable? I believe all the sources indicate notability. I have no conflict of interest other than personal interest in the topic of transgender healthcare. Like the underrepresentation of women on Wikipedia, transgender topics are also underrepresented. I also want to clarify that I used a public domain image, not a photo taken by myself. Please assume good faith. Likeanechointheforest ( talk) 19:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Creating an article after the draft has been declined multiple times is not acceptable, period. First and foremost, the doctor is not notable, even if the sources are reliable. And no, a supposed underrepresentation of transgender topics is not an excuse for dodging or ignoring notability guidelines. There is nothing that sets this doctor apart from any other conscientious citizen who does something for his or her community. -- SilverTiger12 ( talk) 01:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, no evidence that the individual meets GNG, and while I have no doubt that the creator acted in good faith, the only sources available resulted in the article taking a tone that could be seen as promotional. BilledMammal ( talk) 22:28, 20 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:07, 21 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 12:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Cat Aficionado Association

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

Never met WP:SIGCOV standards. There is only a single source "The Mythology of Cats" that even references it more than trivially. Elephanthunter ( talk) 17:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Elephanthunter ( talk) 17:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Elephanthunter ( talk) 17:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:11, 6 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. 解培华 (2014-07-19). "世界名猫亮相哈尔滨集中选美(图)" (in Chinese). China News Service. Archived from the original on 2021-08-07. Retrieved 2021-08-07.
    2. 牛莹 (2005-01-24). "周末到王府井看名猫选美". Legal Evening News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-08-07. Retrieved 2021-08-07 – via Sina Corporation.
    3. 曹囡囡 (2005-01-31). "北京：世界名猫与京城百姓共贺新春(组图)" (in Chinese). China National Radio. Archived from the original on 2021-08-07. Retrieved 2021-08-07 – via Sina Corporation.
    4. 汪震龙 (2005-01-30). "纯种猫抢眼新东安(图)". Beijing Youth Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-08-07. Retrieved 2021-08-07 – via Sina Corporation.
    5. "北京保护小动物协会爱猫分会宣布成立". Beijing Youth Daily (in Chinese). 2001-03-05. Archived from the original on 2021-08-07. Retrieved 2021-08-07 – via Sina Corporation.
    6. 陳家倫 (2014-12-06). "北京名貓展 身價破3萬". China Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-08-07. Retrieved 2021-08-07.
    7. Chen, Huiwen (2006). 貓典一籮筐 [Mao Dian Yi Luo Kuang] (in Chinese). Tianji: Baihua Literature and Art Publishing House [ zh. pp. 25–27. ISBN  7-5306-4362-2. Retrieved 2021-08-07 – via Internet Archive.
    8. Ling, Heng Yi (2013-03-19). "Cats are the top dogs for many pet owners". Shanghai Daily. Archived from the original on 2021-08-07. Retrieved 2021-08-07.

      The passing mention notes: "This is especially obvious at the recent 5th Shanghai Pet Fair in early March, where over 20 pure-breed cats were the highlight at the World Cat Pageant organized by the Cat Aficionado Association (CAA), China's largest cats registry."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Cat Aficionado Association ( simplified Chinese: 北京市保护小动物协会爱猫分会; traditional Chinese: 北京市保護小動物協會愛貓分會) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 09:54, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Cunard: Thank you for taking the time to find these sources. Although not a requirement, it would be nice if the article was updated to include some of these sources so for readers it would be verifiably notable, and it doesn't inadvertently get nominated for deletion again at some point in the future. The logo may be on the verge of deletion (see discussion) due to the inability to verify its origin. Does the CAA have a website or other materials that could be used to source an accurate logo? -- Elephanthunter ( talk) 19:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
I added the sources to the article. I cannot find a website for the Cat Aficionado Association and cannot find anything to verify that File:CAA international logo for distribution.jpg was created by the Cat Aficionado Association, so I agree with the current consensus that the image is unverified. Cunard ( talk) 04:44, 8 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 20:22, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep - By the additional sources added. ( WP:HEY) Suriname0 ( talk) 14:01, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:06, 21 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. MBisanz talk 18:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Yurii Barybin

Yurii Barybin (  | 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 sound engineer, not covered under WP:NMUSIC. Fails WP:GNG. None of the sources currently in the article help. Mottezen ( talk) 00:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mottezen ( talk) 00:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Mottezen ( talk) 00:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Mottezen ( talk) 00:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Thank you for your comment. I randomly clinked on a bunch into the articles at Category:American audio engineers, and indeed, most of them don't have the sources to meet WP:GNG already in their article. It might be that audio-engineers don't attract that much attention for working with stars. I think the solution to this is either to propose creating a special inclusion criteria for talented technicians working with stars, or begin a large purge of audio engineer articles from Wikipedia. Mottezen ( talk) 04:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply
I found more sources. This one is about a master class in 2013: https://happymagazine.com.ua/sobitiya/kak-proshel-master-klass-saund-prodyusera-yuriya-barybina/ Another one: https://glamurchik.tochka.net/248190-yuriy-barybin-zvukorezhisser-odna-iz-klyuchevykh-figur-v-komande-artista/ The latter doesn't look reliable though. Therefore, I'm voting for a Weak Keep. Dr.KBAHT ( talk) 04:19, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
I fixed the broken links, added the patent source and the one about the Burning Man festival. Dr.KBAHT ( talk) 02:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk) 00:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 02:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I always feel bad supporting the deletion of long articles, but the problem here is that after you've gone through the article all you know is that he's a person doing a job. The famous people he's worked with don't matter, because notability isn't acquired by association. What we're left with is just someone doing his job, and you're not notable just for doing your job. This page would be better if rendered down to bullet points and moved to LinkedIn, which is where I suspect it really belongs. The closest this guy comes to having done something notable is his work on in-ear technology, but even on this there's no obvious novelty or notability. Yes, he got the first Ukrainian act to use in-ears, but that's not per se that notable. Whilst the recent additions of more references have attempted to be helpful, they unfortunately emphasise the key point: he's just a guy, doing a job. He may be respected by his peers, but if that were the criterion for notability I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that most Wikipedia editors would qualify for their own articles immediately. Sorry, but this doesn't belong here. RomanSpa ( talk) 09:31, 21 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 merge to COVID-19 pandemic in Russia. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:01, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply

COVID-19 pandemic in North Asia

COVID-19 pandemic in North Asia (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All of North Asia is in Russia, so this article seems redundant since COVID-19 pandemic in Russia exists. Velayinosu ( talk) 01:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Velayinosu ( talk) 01:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Velayinosu ( talk) 01:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Velayinosu ( talk) 01:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:35, 14 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 02:58, 21 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 12:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Chimeric cytoplasmic capping-prone phage polymerase expression system

Chimeric cytoplasmic capping-prone phage polymerase expression system (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prosetta and may be a repeat nomination of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Synthetic_gene_therapy, which was deleted. This article is about a product/service developed by Eukarÿs, a French biotechnology company. The company only has one product, which is the subject of this article. Few secondary sources exist about this, and the ones I've found are not independent. The article appears to be written by someone affiliated with Inserm. Some people at Inserm were involved in developing/researching the C3P3 system, [8] and the company's scientific advisory board has someone who was the CEO of Inserm, [9] so this article may not have been independently written. The author has not written anything else but did create the redirect C3P3, which was previously deleted as a result of the aforementioned deletion nomination. Velayinosu ( talk) 02:37, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Velayinosu ( talk) 02:37, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Velayinosu ( talk) 02:37, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply

The Bushranger, Pontificalibus, Agricolae, Arthistorian1977, and Maury Markowitz, you each participated in the previous deletion nomination, so you may want to comment here. Velayinosu ( talk) 00:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - same product marketing under a new name, with nothing added to demonstrate notability overlooked in original process. Of the 9 referenced sources, 7 of them are directly attributable to the same person, either in his role as research scientist whose team developed the approach or as CEO of the company marketing it. Of the other two, one is foundational, predating the technique's development by a quarter century. The other is an abstract or agenda of a scientific meeting I have been unable to find online, but as it predates the formal publication of the approach by three years (and apparently predates them coming up with their cutesy name for it), it can only be a presentation by the developer (which wouldn't be WP:RS even were it independent). Notability requires significant coverage by independent reliable sources, and we appear to have no single instance of that here. Agricolae ( talk) 19:34, 22 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 12:53, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Zaner Group

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Kstern ( talk) 02:10, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 02:17, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 02:17, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. While I believe business profiles can be used for confirming some details such as the number of employees and establishment date and the like, they can't be responsible for verifying notability, and two of the three sources in the article are business profiles while the other is a primary source. No notability proven here. Just another company that exists. Waddles  🗩  🖉 17:09, 21 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. Consensus is that it's a hoax. Not sure how to add it to the hoax list, but happy to undelete for anyone who wants to move it there...? ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 03:59, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Eduardo Corrochio

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

Hoax/invented article Andrew Kuchling ( talk) 01:27, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply

The article gives no sources, and I've been unable to confirm most of the claims it makes.

  • Google web search for "Eduardo Corrochio" only finds references that are mirrors or translations of this Wikipedia article. So do searches for his purported teacher "Damiano Tutador".
  • Two other names in the article, "Henry Rogers" and "Bernie Howard", are more common and harder to search for, but I can't find any indication of tap dancers with those names. [ A US Library of Congress article on tap dance doesn't mention any of these names.
  • The NYT archive doesn't contain either "Eduardo Corrochio" or "Damiano Tutador". "Bernie Howard" appears once, in a 1974 article as having been arrested for computer fraud.
  • Worldcat.org and Abebooks.com show no copies of Corrochio's claimed autobiography, "Soul of a Tap Dancer".
  • Google Books only finds references in three recent humour books that might be machine-generated.
  • If you look at the earliest version of the article, it references an episode of Seinfeld where "Elaine makes up an elaborate story that she once dated a matador from Spain named Eduardo Corrochio."
  • This article was created in 2005, fairly early in Wikipedia's history. Much editing has been automatic, adding categories or links, but none of these edits have substantially altered the claimed facts from that initial version. That seems unlikely if this is an actual person.

Andrew Kuchling ( talk) 01:45, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:10, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:10, 21 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:10, 21 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_August_21&oldid=1041471087"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE