Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 18 October 20 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Restoring to userspace ( User:Femonics/Farhat Bashir) per request. Please do not republish without addressing the sourcing issues as discussed. czar 07:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Farhat Bashir

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

Mentions of her only seem to be in passing and Seerab Technologies doesn't have an article so I can't see a valid WP:ATD. Despite the plethora of awards that she is supposed to have won, I can't see it being enough for WP:ANYBIO. The best sources I can find are what looks to be a social media profile page and a 3 sentence autobiography. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://web.archive.org/web/20211012180646/https://www.seerab.com/about-us/ No Her company's own website No No Not mentioned ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20211012181323/https://www.thedayspring.com.pk/seerab-maps-an-innovation-in-real-estate/ Yes Yes No Mentioned once ✘ No
https://www.pasha.org.pk/psha-ict-awards-2018/ ? ? No Not mentioned ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20211012181929/http://www.hultprizeat.com/www.hultprizeat.com/cust Yes Yes No Probably the best source out of the ones cited but I'm still not seeing how being a judge on a student competition is enough to meet GNG ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20211012182346/https://scientiamag.org/nasa-space-apps-challenge-pakistan-2019-a-success-story/ Yes Yes No Mentioned once ✘ No
https://scientiamag.org/nasa-space-apps-challenge-pakistan-2019-a-success-story/ Yes Yes No Mentioned once, seems to be same as above ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20211012182507/https://www.womentech.net/en-gb/global-ambassadors/Pakistan/Farhat/Bashir No She is an ambassador for this organisation No No 3 sentences on her, nothing else ✘ No
https://www.apollo.io/companies/CXO-Pakistan/5e574e2a8868950001212563?chart=count ? No User generated No Not mentioned ✘ 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) 06:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
I would have no objections to that Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:28, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Peter Sprigg

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

I doubt he is notable, and he is certainly not notable as a scientist. Wikisaurus ( talk) 23:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- lomrjyo 🐱 ( ✉ • 📝) 00:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. -- lomrjyo 🐱 ( ✉ • 📝) 00:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith ( talk) 11:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith ( talk) 11:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith ( talk) 11:35, 20 October 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 13:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Carina Damm

AfDs for this article:
Carina Damm (  | 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:MMABIO criteria as she only has 1 fight in a top tier promotion. Also fails WP:GNG as her fight coverage is mainly through routine sports report. ♡RAFAEL♡( talk) 16:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 16:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 16:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 16:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 16:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply


  • Delete Has only one top tier fight, a loss, and thus fails to meet WP:NMMA. Coverage is generally routine sports reporting. The only possible exceptions are on her being banned for testing at 20x the allowable level for steroids and about her subsequently submitting a fake urine sample. These days, I would say even that is fairly routine for sports reporting and I would call it insufficient to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa ( talk) 17:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:51, 19 October 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 Tech Data. While Billyatthewheels argued to keep the article per WP:NBUSINESSPERSON, questions about sources in relation to WP:NBIO and GNG were not answered. Multiple editors have suggested a redirect per WP:ATD. ( non-admin closure) 4meter4 ( talk) 15:48, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Rich Hume

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

Sources are all passing mentions like "Hume is the CEO of Tech Data" or online resumes. I don't see in-depth coverage in RS. Does not meet GNG. MB 17:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MB 17:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:48, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply

'Keep' I was double minded but I searched him and I think he passes the WP:BUSINESSPERSONOUTCOME. Just need to add some more references to make it more notable. This is my opinion. Thanks. Billyatthewheels ( talk) 19:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Could you show some of these source because two other editors could not find anything but passing mentions. MB 04:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Also, WP:BUSINESSPERSONOUTCOME is not a guideline or a policy. The correct notability guideline would be WP:NBIO Dr. Swag Lord ( talk) 20:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:50, 19 October 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 Arrow Electronics. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 16:00, 28 October 2021 (UTC) reply

SiliconExpert

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

Upon taking a closer look at the sources, I found these are promotional PR by the company. Not notable enough to pass WP:SIGCOV. Ramaswar (discuss) 16:57, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: The sources cited in the article relies heavily on press releases. Manufacturing.net, DigitalCommerce360, and ArenaSolutions are not reliable sources, even if one of the sources cites the Associated Press in its content. The article reads like an advertisement with such sources. Multi7001 ( talk) 14:40, 13 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: This is a notable company with a long history in the electronics and data science industries. I apologize if the article reads like an advertisement, but I will make changes to remove any promotional wording and back them up with more proper sources. I did try my best to include sources that are reputable, such as Electronic_Design_(magazine) and Manufacturing.net. But I do have more sources so I will add those in within the next 24 hours. Once those changes are made, there will be no objections, right? MWatari ( talk) 03:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
The article lacks reliable sources; if credible sources can be identified and added, if they exist, then it would lessen the risk of deletion. I recommend not adding press releases to the article unless used to confirm very specific and important biographical information. Moreover, the AFD process is a collective line of discussion, so let's wait and see what other users decide. Multi7001 ( talk) 04:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not seeing enough WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources; most of the references are press releases. OhNoitsJamie Talk 03:38, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to their parent company Arrow Electronics as per WP:ATD. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. I have been unable to find any references that meet NCORP criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing ++ 20:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keepstrike double !vote Thank you all for your patience. Note: Article has been updated to contain more references to support facts! Two references in regards to the partnership with Arrow Electronics. Two references regarding the parts database of SiliconExpert. And one reference on the Bill of Materials software.
I agree with the in-depth information *on the company*, so I've included an article from Design News that goes in-depth into the SiliconExpert product, which also includes screenshots from the software itself. Additionally, I've also supplied an article from ThomasNet (or Thomas Register), a reputable online registry for distribution and sourcing, detailing the Arrow and SiliconExpert partnership. The addition of these two articles should fulfill that requirement. MWatari ( talk) 03:21, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment You might have been better served by posting the best WP:THREE links to references here because I can see you went to considerable effort. The article now has a total of 16 references and you've added 5. Here's my take on the 5 you added:
Each reference needs to meet *all* of the criteria in NCORP, so for example, a reference that contains in-depth information provided by the company might meet CORPDEPTH but fail ORGIND. You should also understand that the criteria for using references to support facts is different and less stringent than the criteria to support notability. Also, an article that goes "in-depth" on the product but where the information was provided by the company still fails ORGIND and if it doesn't provide information *on the company* will also fail CORPDEPTH. So my take is that none of those added reference meet NCORP. HighKing ++ 11:18, 26 October 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. General consensus was that the sources provided satisfy the appropriate coverage requirements. After multiple relists, there was no consensus to delete the article. (non-admin closure) Etzedek24 ( I'll talk at ya) ( Check my track record) 23:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Matt Behrendt

Matt Behrendt (  | 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:NGRIDIRON. The individual does not appear to have played a game in a qualifying league, nor served in a notable coaching position. Coverage of the article subject outside of this context appears to be routine sports coverage of minor or semi-proessional leagues as well as a Division III college team. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 21:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:06, 5 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:06, 5 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 22:36, 5 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 21:56, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:44, 19 October 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. Noting also that the nomination was withdrawn. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 22:58, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Kay Wilson Stallings

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

No coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV. What is there is a press release and a profile and a passing mention. No secondary coverage. scope_creep Talk 22:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 23:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 23:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
One is a routine annoucement of end of search and new boss, as its Sesame Street, its famous and it rubs off, the other is mentioned in passing. If she wasn't there, there would be no change to the article. Both of these reference are primary. There is no secondary sources on this BLP. And there is no coverage anywhere after doing a CSE, before search. scope_creep Talk 11:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with the abbreviation CSE. However I did another search and found this, and plenty of articles quoting the subject. NemesisAT ( talk) 12:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Google CSE search, another search format. That is another interview with same image, indicating it is a PR effort. scope_creep Talk 12:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete under criterion G5. — C.Fred ( talk) 20:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Krishnajeev TR

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

A tik tok celebrity who fails GNG Alphaonekannan ( talk) 21:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Alphaonekannan ( talk) 21:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete As per nom, the article fails GNG and contains excessive citations. Also the article not correctly structured, believe that it needs more contents. I also suggest the author to improve the article during this nomination if you can, otherwise I am voting the article to delete. Also somebody fix the AfD template on the article. Onmyway22 ( talk) 07:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
I moved it back to main space and added back the AfD tag. Liz Read! Talk! 22:26, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Since said user has been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry, I have removed their comment. — C.Fred ( talk) 18:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Based on that information, I think that the article can be deleted under WP:G5. On a related note, I have tagged the photograph in the infobox as a copyright violation on Commons. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 19:27, 23 October 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 A-ha discography#Videos/DVDs. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 23:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

A-ha – Live in South America

A-ha – Live in South America (  | 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. Refs are press-releases. scope_creep Talk 22:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 23:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 23:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Sorry, I thought it was the event. But there is still no references on the article. scope_creep Talk 00:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Yeah, agreed, unless someone digs up some sources, it's not going to meet any of our notability standards. I had just wondered if you accidentally cited the wrong one. Just trying to help out honestly, since it drives me nuts when articles are kept strictly due to nomination technicalities. Sergecross73 msg me 03:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
What sources do you need exactly ? What about the artice do you find questinable ? Give me spesifics . Here is another xource from the Rock min rio site. Click on 1991 to read about the festival and A-ha's record breaking audience https://rockinrio.com/rio/en/historia/ https://www.classicpopmag.com/2014/12/ha-reform-rock-rio/ Mortyman ( talk) 18:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
WP:RSMUSIC has a list of a lot of commonly acceptable sources. Generally speaking, you need coverage from publications that go into some detail about the subject itself. I'm not familiar with those sources so I'd have to give them a review. Sergecross73 msg me 19:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Mortyman, the Rock in Rio website isn't an independent source. Classic Pop is a reliable source, I agree... I'm very familiar with it in the UK. But the problem with both sources is that they only say that A-Ha played the festival... they don't say anything about this DVD itself. A-Ha setting attendance records at the concert in 1991 can be mentioned in their article, but that doesn't make the release of this DVD itself notable. We need sources that actually talk about the DVD, not about the concert. Richard3120 ( talk) 01:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 23:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Salimon Oluwatosin Sandra

Salimon Oluwatosin Sandra (  | 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 and WP:PROMO scope_creep Talk 22:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, withdrawn. — David Eppstein ( talk) 15:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Lethia Sherman Hankins

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

Can't understand why she is even notable. A civic leader and educator. She was black and ran for city council, not an unusual occurrence. scope_creep Talk 22:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

I came to wikipedia through a project to improve the representation of women on wikipedia by creating biographies. Women--especially women of color--are historically underrepresented in political office and so I chose to add this woman because Black women politicians are relatively rare. Hankins won a national award for racial justice work, is one of a handful of African American women to serve on Wilmington's city council, and was involved in numerous social and community causes. Musehist ( talk) 13:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC) Musehist reply

@ Musehist: Post a note to the Women in Red project at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red and they be able to help. It will be posted up the maintenance lists, but may be missed. They may find a deeper meaning that can validate the article. They will certainly do a pile on if they think it is notable, which is a good things. I hope that helps. scope_creep Talk 13:28, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Musehist: I will post a note, make sure it happens. scope_creep Talk 13:29, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply

My experience with wikipedia has been one of editors suggesting women's lives are not notable enough; improving representation is a great project, and i'm glad that the Women in Red project exists. I am not sure I would have done the course I did if I knew that if would lead to me having to spend my time trying to convince people who don't have contextual knowledge that black woman politicians in the south are notable by their mere existence. So I appreciate your suggestions, and hope that someone else joins the conversation, but I think the deeper meaning is already clear. Musehist ( talk) 13:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC) musehist reply

  • comment the article is reasonably sourced with an article about her in the Star-News, but the notability is truly borderline as the award she won does not seem to be a national award but rather awarded by the Palm Beach County division of YWCA as indicated here: [1]. So the claim to notability seems to be based mainly on being a city council and a county-level award. There is an obituary here in a local journal. -- hroest 20:01, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I found a 2016 Star-News article about donations of some of her items to the Cape Fear Museum, confirmed to the museum's website, which links to the museum's Flickr "This Month in Women's History" collection featuring the items, including her YWCA award, which includes the engraving "eliminating racism / empowering women". Beccaynr ( talk) 21:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC) Also: "Hankins was featured on our newscasts for a number of years, speaking about a variety of issues impacting the community. [...] Hankins was also presented with a WECT Cape Fear Hero award in 2009." ( WECT6, 2015), and a funeral service announcement/obit with the same byline from Star-News but different date and title than the source in the article. Beccaynr ( talk) 21:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC) Also, the William Madison Randall Library at the University of North Carolina Wilmington has Interview with Lethia S. Hankins (Oral History) in its collection. Beccaynr ( talk) 21:37, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: I've pinged someone with access to the Black Archives collection on ProQuest and hopefully they can help with more sources. Musehist can you provide links to the actual articles rather than the web pages? I cannot access many of the sources, but it appears we have sufficient coverage, over time in curated sources to write a complete and detailed article, between the Star News pieces (already cited and the one I've linked below) and the Wilmington Journal obit to meet GNG. There is also a booklet written about her, [2], but I cannot access it and have no way of judging its content. The Star News source in the article says, "she will receive the 2005 Dorothy Height Racial Justice Award from the YWCA USA, a national award once given to former President Bill Clinton". (And, Hannes Röst Palm Beach and several other places, like this one give a local award with the same name but Essence, a major magazine targeted to the black community confirms that it is indeed a national award, given as a part of the Women of Distinction Awards Gala. [3]) The League of Women Voters commissioned her portrait as one of five "influential women from Wilmington and North Carolina who made a difference for women" (and they looked at 100 years of candidates) to hang in the Bellamy Mansion. Clearly the sources indicate her contributions were not routine. SusunW ( talk) 21:48, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:BASIC and the sources that are in the article and emerging in this discussion that can be added to the article. I also found some reporting on her role with the 1898 Memorial Installation: WECT 2003, WHQR, 2008. Beccaynr ( talk) 21:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Those two references don't denote notability. scope_creep Talk 22:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Those two seem like more than trivial mentions, and help verify one of her community leadership roles; even though they are not substantial, I think they contribute to WP:BASIC notability. Based on what has emerged so far, she appears to have had an impact that multiple independent and reliable sources have found worthy of notice over time. Beccaynr ( talk) 22:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
No, Beccaynr. It is not acceptable to pull in all the stuff that is available and call it valid. There needs to be some kind bottom, and that is quality. A quality source that means something. Nothing that has been presented so far consistitutes notability. scope_creep Talk 11:25, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
It seems to be case there is only one obit, which I can't access now. It doesn't seem to be independent. scope_creep Talk 11:30, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Promise Uzoma Okoro

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

COI-laden article about a politician who does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Coverage is sourced to a website he runs, unreliable sources and trivial mentions. A WP:BEFORE search doesn't bring up enough sources to assert notability. Princess of Ara 22:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Princess of Ara 22:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Princess of Ara 22:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

I have gone through the subject, he is a Politician currently serving his people of Abia, I think the subject is qualified for a space on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebonyidaily ( talk • contribs) 01:35, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply

RESTOREThis is my two years on wikipedai, i have created about five articles and edited many, am based in Aba South East Nigerian and knows of the the politicians, the subject is a young politician who is the second youngest elected Deputy Chairman in history, such young people needs to be encouraged. i vote that other professional editors can edit the articles so i learn rather than deleting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikoro20 ( talk • contribs) 17:58, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply

I'm afraid that being a (Deputy) Local Government Chairman does not pass WP:NPOL, unfortunately. This leaves us with WP:GNG which this subject does not meet per the sources cited. If you can bring to this debate three reliable sources that provide significant coverage and are independent of the subject, I'll withdraw this nomination. Regards,
Princess of Ara 19:04, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
I have searched online, the subject before venturing into active politics was a media personality who was incharge of the Public relations unit of all bloggers in Nigeria. They are many sources about the subject ,i will drop many below, i also do sincerely appreciate you princess of Ara because you have helped in building and making me stronger in editing here. (1) [1](2) [2](3) [3](4)) [4]
Princess, i try to study subjects however am not yet that perfect, so from time to time, i need the teaching of experts like you to help e better, thanks my dear — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikoro20 ( talk • contribs) 20:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Thank you for obliging me with the sources @ Ikoro20, I'll present a source assessment in earnest.
Princess of Ara 21:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ "BREAKING!!! Buhari To Speak at Online Media Practitioners National Convention in Owerri". Arise Africa. Retrieved 2021-10-20.
  2. ^ "Nigerian blogger proposes to his girlfriend on her birthday(Photos) Nigerian blogger proposes to his girlfriend on her birthday(Photos)". Trezzy helm. Retrieved 2021-10-20.
  3. ^ "OMPAN to hold National Convention in Owerri 30 - 31st March 2018". Global News alerts. Retrieved 2021-10-20.
  4. ^ "OMPAN's Convention: Buhari To Deliver Keynote Address OMPAN's Convention: Buhari To Deliver Keynote Address". Big Pen Online. Retrieved 2021-10-20.
@ Ikoro20 Here's the assessment of sources I did. I assessed the 4 sources you supplied and 9 currently in the article.
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Arise Afrika No A press statement No No editorial overisight No Trivial mention ✘ No
Trezzy Helm Yes No A blog No routine coverage about his proposal ✘ No
Global News Alerts No A press release No A blog No Trivial mention ✘ No
Big Pen No A press release ? No Trivial mention ✘ No
PUO reports No A website run by him No blog Yes ✘ No
Dezmayoz Yes No A blog No A congratulatory note ✘ No
Igbere Yes No Blog No Trivial mention ✘ No
Daily Post No An interview Yes Generally reliable per WP:NGRS No An interview ✘ No
Igbere Blog Trivial mention ? Unknown
Igbo Watch Yes Yes ? Can't tell. Seems like a blog No Trivial mention ✘ No
Leadership Yes Yes Generally reliable per WP:NGRS No Source does not even mention the subject ✘ No
PUO Reports No A website run by him No A blog No A post he wrote about an upcoming event ✘ No
Abia Pulse Yes ? Can't tell. Seems like a blog No A single mention ✘ 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}}.
Thank yo so much for your assessment Princess of ara, like i stated above am not perfect, do not know the subject nor have i met him in person, it was on the process of creating an article for the Speaker of the Abia State House of Assembly that i picked interest in the subject,i feel you can use your expertise to help me grow on this space, i really wants to be more grounded on editorial skills, on the subject, i feel you can help build it, you are doig great work here and i sincerely do appreciate you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikoro20 ( talk • contribs) 01:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
having gone through the efforts of @ikoro20, mine opinion is that the article be allowed on wiki space but @princess of ara should kindly do help it grow, the creator appears passionate about his or her work which is what we encourage here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebonyidaily ( talk • contribs) 01:30, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No support for deletion. ( non-admin closure) 4meter4 ( talk) 15:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply

A Celebration of Horses: The American Saddlebred

A Celebration of Horses: The American Saddlebred (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None of the sources provided in the article actually talk about the TV series or episode (whatever this article is - it isn't clear) and instead provide proof that the person cited existed in the world. There is one image in the article that talks about the TV series, a horse magazine which might be also involved in the production of this. Finally, I couldn't find any sources that talk about it online, which makes sense since it is from the early 90s, but I'm unsure how much reviews a PBS show about horses actually got. TL/DR this basically fails GNG. Gonnym ( talk) 21:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Gonnym ( talk) 21:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: probably needs some WP:HEY work done, but this is one of those situations where we are dealing with the pre-google or early google era. There is also significance in that William Shatner was the celebrity host, he owned a Saddlebred farm and is quite an accomplished rider. Also the program won a national award which was (1) a first of its kind, and was (2) sponsored by what is now the United States Equestrian Federation, and received awards, which is notable. It also aired nationally long after its original debut as a special on PBS affiliates, but digging up old newspaper TV schedules is probably also a challenge. Montanabw (talk) 02:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC). reply
  • Comment. As the nom mentions, it's unclear whether this was a series or one episode of a series; if it was just one episode, it would be better to have an article about the series instead. In either case, this show apparently isn't even listed in IMDb. Five of the nine sources cited don't even mention this show, those being "Patricia Nichols Dies" (The Saddlehorse Report), "Saddlebred Legend Lynn Weatherman Dies" (Equus), "KNO Productions", "CH Sky Watch Bio" (Kentucky Horse Park), and "A Celebration of History ..." (The Saddlehorse Report). The Wills Ranch is a page which had this show for sale on VHS and DVD, which is relevant but not an independent source per WP:VENDOR (the Wills Ranch was owned by the show's producer Betty Wills). That leaves only an article from The American Saddlebred whose first page is used as an image in this article, a newspaper article not available without a newspapers.com account, and an article from "Horse Show Magazine" not available online. It's possible that the sources I can't access make a clear case for notability, and I don't want to judge the subject non-notable without being able to view the offline sources, but so far I'm not enthusiastic. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I just added this to the William Shatner filmography. Surely most everything he's touched is notable? Every single individual Star Trek episode ever produced is notable as a standalone article, as far as I know. – wbm1058 ( talk) 18:42, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
    I'm very surprised to see an WP:INHERITED argument from an admin. Not every TV show is notable, not every show that a "famous" person was in is notable and not every Star Trek episode ever produced is automatically notable. See WP:TVSHOW on notability guidelines on TV, especially Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope), or on a cable television channel with a broad regional or national audience. It is far less likely to be notable if it airs in only one local media market. - this was aired regional channels, so the lowest possible exposure. The guideline continues with: In either case, however, the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone. For instance, a purely local talk radio program might be notable enough for inclusion if it played a solidly sourceable role in exposing a major political scandal, and a national television program might not be notable if it was cancelled too quickly to have garnered any media coverage. - where are the reliable sources for this TV series? Gonnym ( talk) 19:08, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
    Nature (TV program) is produced by WNET New York, but that doesn't mean it's only broadcast in the New York area. Nova (American TV program) is produced by WGBH-TV Boston, which also produces programming that airs nationally. Just because Memphis doesn't unofficially serve as one of three flagship stations of PBS doesn't mean it doesn't occasionally produce things that air beyond the Memphis region. Presumably at least all the Kentucky-based PBS channels carried this. I suppose this can be verified by researching historical TV listings. – wbm1058 ( talk) 19:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
    It might have aired even all over the US (which seems unlikely), but that still doesn't change the fact that unless RS talk about it (and not in a TV guide kind of way of "A Celebration of Horses: The American Saddlebred 6PM Monday") then the show is not notable. The fact that it was meant to be a series and ended up with one episode and that the only one talking about is the horse organization says a lot. Gonnym ( talk) 19:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
    I know this is OR on my part, but I know it was aired all over the US, because I saw it on my PBS affiliate during pledge week several years ago. While the celebration of horses series probably is worthy of a standalone article, this one got the publicity because it had Shatner. Montanabw (talk) 17:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, although I recognize that this is a borderline case and the page could do with some improvement. I've looked at the criteria at WP:NF and the draft Wikipedia:Notability (television), and I take particular note of something that was mentioned just above by the nom: that notability is likely if "it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope)". In fact, according to the page, it had "four releases nationally on 56 PBS affiliates". That is not just regional exposure; for PBS, 56 affiliate markets are a lot (especially given that there are 50 states in the US). PBS is a major broadcast network, and this was widespread national broadcasting. Also, the show won an award, albeit from a specialty organization. As far as I can tell, that organization was independent of the show production, and so this establishes some independent recognition of the show's significance. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Just a note: I watched this show on YouTube and found that William Shatner was not the host of this show. He is, however, the person most prominently featured in it and there is plenty of interview footage of him in the show. I removed the references to Shatner being the host from the article. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I touched that up a bit, to clarify that he was the celebrity guest, as opposed to host. It was kind of an odd structure, as the narrator isn’t exactly the host, and Shatner was prominently featured, but whatever. Also, a must raise a concern that certain citations required for variability were being removed by the person who nominated this article, and so I am posting a link to my last revision which shows all citations, and thus if we are looking at that issue, this is an easy place to compare other versions. Montanabw (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Tryptofish. Mini apolis 02:04, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 23:03, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Volcano Ōta

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

Not notable. References are passing mentions and cast lists. No secondary coverage for a BLP. scope_creep Talk 21:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Jumpytoo Talk 01:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 ( ICE T • ICE CUBE) 15:45, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Martina Castro

Martina Castro (  | 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:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Refs are own blogs, self-generated profiles and a Forbes contributor ref. Very poor. No secondary coverage. scope_creep Talk 19:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 20:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 20:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

There are four sources here that are not self-generated, third party reports on the subject. The Forbes piece is not self-generated at all. The subject is extremely significant in the development of US broadcast media, and has the citations to show for it. But the article could be augmented so edits are welcome.-- Angshah ( talk) 20:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

The Forbes link is Non-RS. It is a contributor. The referencing is very poor. scope_creep Talk 22:17, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Thanks for clarifying! This helps a lot! And also, the new sources look quite good!-- Angshah ( talk) 13:43, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep This is only the second time I have commented on an article for deletion. However, I have added sources providing evidence of coverage of her work (e.g., NBC News, The Verge). With the additions, I feel it is clearer that she meets WP:GNG. DaffodilOcean ( talk) 14:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment I am working to revise the article and add sources, and it looks like there is some support for WP:CREATIVE#3 as well, due to her co-creation of a collective body of work and sources including this 2020 Vulture article focused a collective body of work that includes her role as the founder of Adonde Media, executive producer of the Las Raras podcast, as well as her work as the host and producer of the Duolingo Spanish Podcast. There is also, as noted above, the 2017 NBC News article focused on her work on the Duolingo Spanish Podcast, and the 2020 Verge article focused on it. I also found a 2017 Language Magazine review of the Duolingo Spanish Podcast. The article also has a 2014 PRI report of a work where she was a sound designer. I am still working my way through sources, including Spanish-language sources. Beccaynr ( talk) 22:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr ( talk) 01:18, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr ( talk) 01:18, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr ( talk) 01:18, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment @ Beccaynr: Excellent work... as usual. scope_creep Talk 14:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply
    Thank you, scope_creep. I plan to further review the Spanish-language sources, including about her role with Radio Ambulante, because I think there is more, even if not particularly substantial, support for the "collective body of work" aspect of WP:CREATIVE notability based on that work, and there appears to be support for WP:BASIC related to her role as CEO of Adonde Media due to the data collection activities and her role in the podcast industry that are now more highlighted, or could be more emphasized. Overall, there now appears to be more support for WP:BASIC, and I think the Spanish-language sources that were quite deep in search results help solidify notability for this subject. Beccaynr ( talk) 14:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Yes, I think it is well passed that. Nomination Withdrawn. Article has undergone significant redevelopment and meets the heymann standard. scope_creep Talk 15:02, 22 October 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 Azerbaijanis. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:07, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Azerbaijani population

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

WP:CONTENTFORK of the Azerbaijanis article, but badly written / referenced. Apparently a translation from Azeri Wikipedia that does not pass even most basic English standards - impossible to understand even what the lede is trying to say. --Armatura ( talk) 19:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

After opening this AfD, the creator moved part of the text to create yet another content fork at Azerbaijani population by country - this is potentially an attempt of saving otherwise deletable material. --Armatura ( talk) 21:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --Armatura ( talk) 19:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. --Armatura ( talk) 19:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 20:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Delete comments, apart from being in the majority, appear to reflect better the quality of the sources. Black Kite (talk) 23:40, 30 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Artiswitch

Artiswitch (  | 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. Fails WP:NFILM. scope_creep Talk 01:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Link20XX ( talk) 01:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 01:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 02:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC) reply

None of these are a review, all of them very low quality. They are very very poor. Not of them is a review. scope_creep Talk 11:05, 18 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom for failing WP:NFILM. The lowest bar in this guideline is that it," ... has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." No indication this is the case and it certainly doesn't meet any other criteria at WP:FILM. Ifnord ( talk) 14:38, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
    • This isn't actually a film but a web series, so I don't think WP:NFILM applies. Also, sources don't have to be reviews to be considered secondary coverage. The Crunchyroll article is covering the series' announcement, thus making it a secondary source based on the definition of such. The other articles are also covering the series. Link20XX ( talk) 17:23, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
It does apply. scope_creep Talk 17:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
As this is web content, WP:NWEB can also be used as notability criteria (this show probably doesn't meet it, but it's an option if more sources are found). Jumpytoo Talk 19:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
I still don't see why NFILM applies. I see the argument for NWEB but that is irrelevant because it clearly passes WP:GNG with the sources provided above. Articles don't have to be reviews to be significant coverage in reliable sources. Crunchyroll, Natalie, Mantan Web and Amimate Times do have some content from primary sources, however they aren't just a copy-paste of the original announcement and add some background and other information on the series. I have no idea why Mantan web gives you a 404 error (works fine for me). An article sourcing partially to a press release does not make it a primary source. As for Animate Times, the article is not clearly labeled as a press release so I have no reason to believe it is such. But it's irrelevant anyway, the other sources are just fine. Link20XX ( talk) 09:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge I feel an ATD is possible here by either making an article on AsobiSystem then merging there, or merging to Harajuku#In popular culture if notability of AsobiSystem cannot be established. Jumpytoo Talk 19:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Fails GNG as the coverage is not in-depth enough or independent enough to pass WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:NFILM which is our guideline for this kind of content (it is the closest guideline for covering a streaming web series). WP:NWEB is designed to cover other kinds of web content (blogs, Internet forums, newsgroups, online magazines, other media, podcasts, webcomics, and web portals), and is meant to cover other kinds of content on the internet not covered elsewhere, not to subvert a more pertinent SNG. 4meter4 ( talk) 16:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply
    • At least from my experience, an article that covers just the series and nothing else that is also from a website with no connection to the original source qualifies as secondary and independent. Like I stated above, these are not copy-pastes of press releases. Link20XX ( talk) 05:01, 28 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: CG World magazine discusses the series' creation here. lullabying ( talk) 23:59, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply
A magazine that discusses the mechanics of computer graphics, in this particular instance describing how the characters were drawn layer by layer. Hardly worth mentioning. scope_creep Talk 18:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) 🌀 Locomotive207- talk 🌀 01:07, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Craig Taylor (writer)

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

WP:BLP of a journalist and playwright, not reliably sourced as passing our inclusion criteria for journalists or playwrights. The only notability claim on offer here is that he exists, and the only "references" are an Amazon listing for one of his books and a directory of his own writing on the self-published website of a magazine he's written for -- but the notability test for a writer is not passed by citing his work to itself as technical verification that it exists, it's passed by citing his work to external sources verifying that it got independent attention (notable literary awards, critical analysis, etc.) to establish its significance. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much, much better sources than this. Bearcat ( talk) 15:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 15:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 15:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 15:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 15:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 18:46, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No support for deletion and article has been improved through editing. ( non-admin closure) 4meter4 ( talk) 16:16, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Golden Horseshoe Saloon

Golden Horseshoe Saloon (  | 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 a well organized 15-year-old article about a restaurant at Disneyland. It is almost completely unsourced. The only coverage I can find about it are Disney-associated blogs and websites. Applicable policies would be WP:CORP and WP:NOTTRAVEL. I thought of merging it into Frontierland but that article simply lists attractions without describing them. So, not knowing where else this can fit, I am proposing it for deletion. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 14:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 14:48, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Amusement parks-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 14:48, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 14:48, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Why are disney blogs not good references? I mean they go to Disney everyday. Kaleeb18 ( talk) 00:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Kaleeb18, Disney affiliated sources may be OK for some minor uncontroversial details about a notable topic, but they are worthless for establishing notability. That requires references to reliable sources that are completely independent of the topic, so that rules out all Disney-affiliated sources, which exist to drive business to Disney ventures. Where are the independent reliable sources that devote significant coverage to the Golden Horseshoe Saloon? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Cullen328: oh ok thanks. So the only thing that really can be referenced about this article is a book cause all the websites about it are disney blogs from what I can see Kaleeb18 ( talk) 11:35, 15 October 2021 (UTC) reply

We should not delete it. I have found an article on LA Times and New York Times that talks about the restaurant. I have also found an Anehiem newspaper talking about it. i have added all three of those articles as references to the restaurant article in hopes of saving it from deletion. Kaleeb18 ( talk) 19:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC) reply

The NYT citation is an obituary about a person, not about the topic of this article. The LA Times one is OK, as is OCregister. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 04:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC) reply

yes your right @ Anachronist: but in that article its mentions a lot of stuff about the show.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 18:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Nice find @ Cullen328: how did you find that book tho so I can search for books too? Kaleeb18 ( talk) 23:30, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Kaleeb18, I used the "books" search tool at the top of this page, but you can just go to Google Books anytime to search for coverage in books. You can sometimes read a few pages, but some publishers do not allow that. Sometimes magazine articles turn up too. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:40, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
thank you @ Cullen328: I didn't even know there was a google books. Kaleeb18 ( talk) 00:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Kaleeb18, I am happy to introduce you to a useful search option for Wikipedia editors. Ask me questions any time. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) ProClasher97 ~ Have A Question? 14:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Bold Rock Hard Cider

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

Not notable, and does not meet NCORP guidelines. No secondary sources at all, and a quick search only brings up the company’s website and various social media profiles and product lists. ProClasher97 ~ Have A Question? 18:36, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ProClasher97 ~ Have A Question? 18:36, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ProClasher97 ~ Have A Question? 18:36, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - The Forbes article is actually not acceptable since its by a contributing writer, however, i have found and added more in-depth sources, such as [8] and [9]. Nominator needs to do better research! There are a lot more news on this company. Lesliechin1 ( talk) 02:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: You two do make some very valid points. As someone who is still relatively new to AfD, it’s not fair for me to rush decisions based solely on the content of an article. Knowing what I do now, I honestly don’t know why I nominated this for deletion (although I’m sure the promo-edits by sockpuppets had some influence on that decision). Looking at the article now, it’s clear that this subject is notable enough, so I’m going to close this so that no other editors have to waste their time on this. ProClasher97 ~ Have A Question? 14:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 10:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Authena AG

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

This company has some mentions online, but none of them are of the quality that would be considered significant coverage in a third-party source. They get trivial mentions in start-up rankings ( [10], [11]) and some promo coverage ( [12]). I haven't seen any coverage worthy of WP:GNG/ WP:NCORP. Modussiccandi ( talk) 18:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi ( talk) 18:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi ( talk) 18:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi ( talk) 18:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
There's reliability and depth of coverage, which needs to be appropriately high to count toward notability. I can't speak to the reliability of the Italian-language source (perhaps other participants can?) but I would say that it constitutes significant coverage. For the German-language source, the opposite is the case: it's certainly reliable but I can't speak to the depth of coverage because it's behind a paywall. Modussiccandi ( talk) 15:48, 26 October 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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Wang Sichao

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

The previous deletion discussion from 2005 was closed as No Consensus, although the rationales for 'keep' were thin. WP:BEFORE reveals no significant coverage of the subject in WP:RS. There are only three sources in the article; one does not mention the subject, and another is (at best) of marginal reliability. The lack of any significant coverage in reliable secondary sources renders the subject non-notable per WP:N (specifically WP:SIGCOV). JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 16:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 17:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 17:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Jumpytoo Talk 23:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Comment From WP:BASIC: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable [and] intellectually independent of each other At least three of the four sources mentioned immediately above by Jumpytoo are not independent, reliable secondary sources that are intellectually independent of each other, and thus they do not, as claimed, meet WP:BASIC. Specifically: China News Service is state-owned and "involved in targeted disinformation and propaganda campaigns" (sourced on the enWiki page); "The Paper" is run by the Shanghai United Media Group, which is state-owned and operates as a "foreign mission" of the Chinese government (sourced on the enWiki page); the Qianjiang Evening News, is state-owned. The cas.cn source could not be evaluated by me, but it seems a reasonable assumption that any media outlet with the .cn top-level domain is, by definition, state-owned. Even if sources owned and operated by the Chinese government could be considered reliable for anything, there is no basis for considering them to be intellectually independent. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 00:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply
There are a few issues with your argument:
1. From this any media outlet with the .cn top-level domain is, by definition, state-owned, you seem to believe all Chinese media are not reliable. The consensus at WP:RSN and WP:RSP has consistently said that most Chinese outlets are reliable when they are not discussing a topic the CCP considers controversial (see WP:XINHUA, China Daily, Sixth Tone (which I consider the English equivalent of The Paper, owned by same part of government)), and this person is not considered controversial. I would also like to note the context omitted in your quote of China News Service, specially you omitted According to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, CNS was involved in targeted disinformation and propaganda campaigns, which a RfC on WP:RSN just closed noting that Editors consider ASPI to be a biased or opinionated source that is reliable in its area of expertise but recommend care as it is a think tank associated with the defence industry in Australia, the Australian Government and the US State Department (boldings are mine). And regardless, the CNS source is from 2016, which predates the issues noted by the think tank (which happened in 2019). If we use your idea that all Chinese media is unreliable, this would impose a standard of requiring international notability for any article relating to China, which is a ridiculous standard not applied anywhere else and a clear example or WP:SYSTEMICBIAS.
2.You are misunderstanding what intellectually independent means. To quote the guideline, Intellectual independence" requires not only that the content of sources be non-identical, but also that the entirety of content in a published work not be derived from (or based in) another work (partial derivations are acceptable). For example, a speech by a politician about a particular person contributes toward establishing the notability of that person, but multiple reproductions of the transcript of that speech by different news outlets do not.. This would for example cover the obituaries I gave (which is why I provided 4 sources, not WP:THREE, as the first 2 sources only count as 1 for notability), but not the profiles as reading the articles even through Google Translate will show they were written independently of each other and the profiles both contain content that are not in the other article. An analogy would be saying two articles written 3 years apart by different authors that both contain facts not discussed in the other don't have intellectual independence because they were both posted in the NY Times. Jumpytoo Talk 02:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Why do you suppose this subject is not controversial? It is a bit weird to argue that UFO beliefs (which seem to be the primary interest of the sources you propose) are uncontroversial. On the basis of WP:SENSATION, we would probably reject the WP:FRINGEBLP as the sources don't seem (for whatever reason) to be bothered by the fact that his arguments are woolly to the extreme. jps ( talk) 11:54, 28 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Could of used better wording there, was referring to the "political sensitiveness" of the topic when considering if Chinese state media would be unreliable for reporting, and in terms of that he is not controversial. I can see evaluating SENSATION and FRINGEBLP based of his public belief of aliens, however the China News Service and China Science Daily sources have most of their coverage on non-fringey topics (specifically, CNS only talks about his meteorite detection & collision research, and the CSD source has the first 2/3rds talk about his meteorite research, and determining human-related causes for UFOs) such that an article can still be written based off non-fringe content. Jumpytoo Talk 19:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC) reply
I actually think that some of the meteorite detection and collision research may be WP:FRINGE as well, but it is hard for me to judge because of my inability to interact with the sources. Do you think it possible to provide a rewrite of the stub to illustrate what you think could happen here if the article were kept? jps ( talk) 12:00, 29 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources provided by Jumpytoo ( talk · contribs).

    There is significant biographical coverage of the subject from a Google Translate of the 2016 China News Service article:

    Wang Sichao, originally from Guangzhou, Guangdong, was born in Rongxian County, Guangxi. He studied in Zhongshan University and Primary School, South China Normal University in his childhood. He was admitted to the Physics Department of Peking University in 1957, and was assigned to Zijinshan, Chinese Academy of Sciences in 1963. Worked in the Planetary Research Laboratory of the Observatory, and successively served as research intern, assistant researcher, associate researcher, researcher, etc. Retired honorably in 1999.

    Researcher Wang Sichao is one of the pioneers of meteorological research in China. He and Academician Ouyang Ziyuan have conducted in-depth and systematic studies on the meteorite rain that occurred in Jilin and achieved important results. He traveled long distances to the Qinling Mountains to inspect the Ningqiang meteorite crash site, collect meteorite samples, and then conduct in-depth research to find out the composition of this rare carbonaceous chondrite. He also enthusiastically participated in the study of Wuxi Climbing Ice.

    There is significant biographical coverage of the subject from a Google Translate of the 2013 China Science Daily article:

    Wang Sichao is one of the earliest meteorite researchers in China's astronomical world. In 1963, he graduated from Peking University with a major in astrophysics and then joined the Purple Mountain Observatory of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. He has been "unconventional" in meteorite research for many years. At that time, Wang Sichao, who was still a little experienced, firmly believed that the origin of the solar system should be studied from the original sample of the solar system-meteorite experimental analysis. Get started.

    For this reason, he has received much criticism. In order to prove his theory, Wang Sichao often travels alone to look for valuable meteorites in mountainous areas. Fortunately, the carbonaceous chondrite collected by him, Shaanxi Ningqiang meteorite, was identified and found to contain a wealth of important information about the birth of the solar system, and found the factual basis for the impact of supernovae on the formation of the solar system.

    From WP:XINHUA:

    Xinhua News Agency is the official state-run press agency of the People's Republic of China. There is consensus that Xinhua is generally reliable for factual reporting except in areas where the government of China may have a reason to use it for propaganda or disinformation. Xinhua is also generally reliable for the views and positions of the Chinese government and its officials. For subjects where the Chinese government may be a stakeholder, the consensus is almost unanimous that Xinhua cannot be trusted to cover them accurately and dispassionately; some editors favour outright deprecation because of its lack of editorial independence. There is no consensus for applying any one single label to the whole of the agency. Caution should be exercised in using this source, extremely so in case of extraordinary claims on controversial subjects or biographies of living people. When in doubt, try to find better sources instead; use inline attribution if you must use Xinhua.

    I will apply the Xinhua source analysis standard to the Chinese government-owned or affiliated sources listed here. Regarding the coverage of Wang Sichao, I do not see "a reason to use it for propaganda or disinformation". The sources cover Wang Sichao in the context of his work as an astronomer. I consider them reliable. I strongly agree with Jumpytoo's statement: "If we use your idea that all Chinese media is unreliable, this would impose a standard of requiring international notability for any article relating to China, which is a ridiculous standard not applied anywhere else and a clear example or WP:SYSTEMICBIAS."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Wang Sichao ( Chinese: 王思潮) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 08:06, 29 October 2021 (UTC) reply

I don't think these sources help us write a biography. What is "unconventional" about his studies? Incidentally, he doesn't really have many publications or sources that I can find which identify his studies beyond "he went here, he said this" which is a WP:REDFLAG for me when trying to properly contextualize claims. I don't know how to write this biography and the sources proposed do little to inspire confidence. What I would love to see would be a person arguing for keep rewrite the biography to conform to our standards. jps ( talk) 12:00, 29 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:TNT and WP:A7. While I agree with Cunard and Jumpytoo that the subject passes WP:BASIC per the Chinese language sources, currently there is no strong claim to notability written in the prose of the article itself. As such, it could be speedy deleted unless someone actually writes about why this particular researcher is important and what his actual work/research entailed. At the moment the article mainly focuses on a spurious critique of Stephen Hawking's speculations on man's potential encounter with extraterrestrials. This seems trivial rather than encyclopedic. 4meter4 ( talk) 19:16, 29 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Bravo Cunard. I scratched my delete vote above. Keep per WP:HEY. Subject passes WP:BASIC. 4meter4 ( talk) 12:35, 31 October 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. There's consensus that the GNG is met. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 17:13, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Tyler Rogers (gridiron football)

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

Not notable per WP:NGRIDIRON having not played in a professional league. See discussion at Talk:Tyler_Rogers#Requested_move_12_October_2021 SilkTork ( talk) 16:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Player doesn't meet NGRIDIRON but he does meet GNG per the points made below so this is a changed vote from delete to keep. I assume his college football career has no bearing for notability purposes unless he meets GNG? This player doesn't appear to meet GNG. Happy to change my vote if suitable sources can be presented. No Great Shaker ( talk) 19:16, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
No Great Shaker, no, one's college football career can indeed be what establishes an individual's notability. Jweiss11 ( talk) 01:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Thank you, Jweiss11. Having read the points made below, I think we can go with GNG on this one so I've altered my vote. No Great Shaker ( talk) 12:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Rockchalk717: WP:NGRIDIRON is an inclusive standard, not an exclusive one. College football players who have never played professional football are notable if they pass WP:GNG. As outlined below, Rogers hits that mark. Cbl62 ( talk) 15:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep subject is notable based on extensive coverage in multiple, independent sources. It's also safe to assume that any starting quarterback for a NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision team will pass GNG. You will find the sources if you look for them. Jweiss11 ( talk) 01:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
    It's also safe to assume that any starting quarterback for a NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision team will pass GNG. I have doubts as to whether that's true, and even if it were true that it would be desirable to have that kind of coverage. For most of them, we could never write more than the kind of article you see here--a stub covering no more than eight years of their life (college and high school career), with nothing to say about what happened next. That would be better covered in a season article. Mackensen (talk) 01:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Mackensen, yes, it's true, certainly for someone who started at QB for at least a full season like Rogers. Even if the notable pursuits of an individual are confined to a few years, they can still be notable. This article and it analogs could be expanded into a well-developed articles. Jweiss11 ( talk) 02:04, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
To further demonstrate notability, and out of thousands and thousands who have played football at New Mexico State, he ranks second (behind Chase Holbrook) all time in passing yards, total offense, and touchdowns. This is not a run of the mill player. Cbl62 ( talk) 15:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 08:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. per WP:CSD#A9. I have blocked the SPA. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 19:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

҈ Beginning

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

Seemingly non-notable article about an album, the article about the musician is tagged for A7. Creator seems to be a promotion-only account. Giraffer ( talk· contribs) 16:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Giraffer ( talk· contribs) 16:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Giraffer ( talk· contribs) 16:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 16:41, 19 October 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 14:26, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

2015 SIU Edwardsville Cougars men's soccer team

2015 SIU Edwardsville Cougars men's soccer team (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails to meet WP:GNG through a lack of significant coverage. Cited sources are WP:ROUTINE and a large number of citations and prose does not change that fact. Season also fails WP:NSEASONS as the team did not make the NCAA Tournament. Recent prior consensus for such articles exists here. Jay eyem ( talk) 16:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jay eyem ( talk) 16:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 14:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Arihant Group of Institutes

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

Could also be WP:G11 but regardless cannot find independent sources to meet WP:NCORP. Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 14:38, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 14:38, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 14:38, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 13:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete There's zero that's notable about this. Even if it does award degrees. I can't even find the usual trivial name drops that most universities have in school directories. In the meantime, articles should be more then trivial basic facts that people can easily find on the websites of the universities. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 04:53, 23 October 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 14:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Knowles Crossroads, Delaware

Knowles 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)

Topo shows a road intersection just as empty as the nearby Gum Crossroads and McDonalds Crossroads, as does the satellite image. A few newspapers.com hits like [24] [25] [26] use it as a reference point. An obituary says someone who near the crossroads died, but I do not see notability. Reywas92 Talk 13:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92 Talk 13:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Reywas92 Talk 13:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Seems to have been a crossroads and reference point. No indication of notability or being an actual community. I was able to find a bit in the archives, but nothing substantial. ~ EDDY ( talk/ contribs)~ 00:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 13:48, 19 October 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 14:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Kona Shuttle

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

WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I cannot find a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails NCORP HighKing ++ 10:23, 5 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. HighKing ++ 10:23, 5 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. HighKing ++ 10:25, 5 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. HighKing ++ 10:25, 5 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 13:47, 19 October 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. Black Kite (talk) 23:41, 30 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Serbian Brazilian

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

Obscure ethnicity. Not every intersection in the world is notable, and this is trivial. Geschichte ( talk) 11:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisting to encourage consideration of the "merge" option. Note that if content is merged, the article will not be deleted but replaced with a redirect over the page history to preserve proper attribution.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 12:53, 19 October 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. Black Kite (talk) 23:42, 30 October 2021 (UTC) reply

2015 Würenlingen shooting

2015 Würenlingen shooting (  | 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 crime. The only sources are routine coverage. Asmodea Oaktree ( talk) 12:01, 4 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Asmodea Oaktree ( talk) 12:01, 4 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Asmodea Oaktree ( talk) 12:01, 4 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:49, 4 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 16:57, 11 October 2021 (UTC) reply
        • If it was an act of terror or received international coverage, it might be notable. If it resulted in new legislation in Germany, created a political scandal or involved a celebrity or other well-known figure, it might be notable. I agree with Lockley's suggestion to Merge it into the Würenlingen article. Rogermx ( talk) 02:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
          And how many of the countless articles we have on murders do you think fall into most of those categories? Very few. As to international coverage, there's a link to a BBC article on the page. Is the BBC Swiss (not German, incidentally)? So yes, that's international coverage. Most British newspapers covered it as well. A quick Google search also shows coverage from Ireland, Australia, India, the USA, Taiwan... And that's just a selection of English-language sources. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 07:27, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply
          • hello @ Necrothesp: -- in good faith & good humor let me follow up on that phrase "claim of notability." I do so partly for my own benefit so I have it right. That phrase occurs in wikipedia once at WP:NOT, versions of it three times here at an older inoperative version, with about 2350 more verbatim occurrences in wikipedia to choose from. I looked at the first four pages of results, and the phrase is used how I'd expected, in guidelines and discussions. The slightly different phrase "claim to notability" comes back with another 1700 results to choose from but you see the point. No, expressing a claim to notability isn't formalized or mandatory. I would be against that, as you seem to be. But it's a useful concept here in the AfD queue, that language comes from the guidelines, and it's natural that an editor would talk about it. Best -- Lockley ( talk) 19:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
            • @ Necrothesp It is a common phrase at AFD because of WP:A7 which does require that we provide some sort of indication of importance within an article. Without one, an article can be speedy deleted even if it passes GNG. Best. 4meter4 ( talk) 21:30, 29 October 2021 (UTC) reply
              • Actually, it isn't especially common because most editors with any experience realise that it stems from a far too literal reading of notability criteria. An indication of importance doesn't necessarily mean explicitly stating importance. It simply means using common sense to determine whether something is important. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 23:08, 29 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into Würenlingen, where this crime is already mentioned. One study on data from 2009 to 2015 showed the U.S. ranked as #11 in terms of fatalities from mass shootings per capita. Ten European countries had worse statistics. Switzerland came in at #7. That may be a surprisingly and counterintuitive result from a politically charged analysis -- but the point is, that shows European mass shootings are not rare enough to be automatically notable in wikipedia. Notice that since 1985 there are been two mass shootings in this Swiss town of 5000 people. -- Lockley ( talk) 17:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 12:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete and ideally migrate any relevant additions (if any) to the Würenlingen page. As Lockley notes, Switzerland has high gun ownership and gun violence, so the existing mention is more than enough - unless if, in future, it changes something, e.g. gun legislation. Iskandar323 ( talk) 17:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. The requests to supply sources went unfulfilled. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:39, 28 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Geoffrey John Davies

Geoffrey John Davies (  | 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 business man and violinist who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them thus a This is s GNG fail. Furthermore a before search turns up nothing concrete. They are a business person and fail to satisfy WP:ANYBIO. Needless to say WP:SIGCOV isn’t met Celestina007 ( talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 12:46, 19 October 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. Current consensus is to delete. If that changes in the future, this can be revisited. As I'm nearly positive that someone will ask me to restore the article at some point, I'm going to preemptively restore it to Draft:Sanjay Awasthy. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Sanjay Awasthy

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

Local politician. Doesn't meet WP:NPOLITICIAN or WP:GNG - MPGuy2824 ( talk) 08:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. - MPGuy2824 ( talk) 08:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - MPGuy2824 ( talk) 08:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I'd completely missed this. Originally referenced an Indian cricketer with only a single first-class appearance - whose article would probably have been deleted anyway in current circumstances - then was changed to refer to a politician who none of us will have heard of. I still don't know how the notability criteria has changed. Bobo . 08:36, 29 September 2021 (UTC) reply
This should explain the switch. - MPGuy2824 ( talk) 08:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment From a cricketing point of view I'd normally say redirect to List of Himachal Pradesh cricketers as he played a single game for a single FC team and there's not enough fo a GNG pass but a WP:ATD, however I'm not particularly knowledgable on politics guidelines and Indian politics. If his political career is in no way notable then I'd say redirect to the cricket list, but if he has some notability in politics then perhaps a politics redirect would be better. Rugbyfan22 ( talk) 09:13, 30 September 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Rugbyfan22 ( talk) 13:04, 30 September 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Rugbyfan22 ( talk) 13:04, 30 September 2021 (UTC) reply
Sorry about that, I wasn't trying to slip something under the radar. But now that i check WP:CRIN, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Official cricket#Men's Competitions with First-class/List A/T20 status that we don't deem notable, his cricket career is not automatically notable. - MPGuy2824 ( talk) 05:03, 2 October 2021 (UTC) reply
No worries MPGuy2824, I must apologise, I mistook your username for another user from earlier in the year who nominated quite a few cricket articles without checking the cricket notability guidelines. StickyWicket ( talk) 16:15, 4 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:52, 6 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 12:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
According to this ECI notice, counting will be on 2nd November. So, we should have the results, by evening tomorrow (IST). - MPGuy2824 ( talk) 04:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC) reply
Result page. Sanjay is leading. Venkat TL ( talk) 05:23, 2 November 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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Chocolatey

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

The 2016 AfD consensus was to merge this article to NuGet. This was done but in the past week, an IP editor has deleted the merged text from the target [27] and reverted the redirect on this article. The product has continued to be developed (to version 0.11.2, according to the revived article), so rather than revert the IP actions, a new AfD may be appropriate, though I am not seeing the subsequent substantial coverage that would be needed to overturn the previous decision. AllyD ( talk) 13:54, 4 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 13:54, 4 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Seems good enough for me. – K4rolB ( talk) 20:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 16:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Previous discussions: 2016-04 (closed as merge to NuGet)
Logs: 2015-05 ✗ G6 ← 2009-01 ✗ G2
-- Cewbot ( talk) 00:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Regarding the sources listed above, the two PCWorld items were considered in the previous AfD, the ZDnet item references a paragraph in a Microsoft blog [28] which summarises this and other package managers. Are that and the brief LinuxJournal piece from 2017 sufficient to overturn the previous consensus and establish specific notability? AllyD ( talk) 06:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 12:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to NuGet per WP:ATD and its information can be summarized in the main article. Maybe tagging the redirect with {{ r with possibilities}} is possible. – The Grid ( talk) 13:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Chocolatey is a package manager for installing executable binaries, like Homebrew, while NuGet is a dependency manager for developer libraries, like RubyGems. The version of Chocolatey that was based directly on NuGet was deprecated and fact that it uses nuspec files is simply an implementation detail. The links in both AFDs and these:
establish notability. Galagora ( talk) 21:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: The suggestions to merge this with Nuget show a fundamental misunderstanding on what Chocolatey is. Chocolatey is the package manager for Windows and while it is based on Nuget, it is not Nuget. As an employee of Chocolatey, my intention is to keep this page up to date now I know it exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paubyuk ( talk • contribs) 10:16, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to NuGet per above. The sources given in the "keep" !votes don't inspire confidence of being able to write a detailed, neutral article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:49, 29 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: very substantial coverage in PC World and meaningful coverage in Linux Journal. Every merge/delete supporter in this conversation has access to TWL that includes coverage on PC Pro, a little mention in InfoWorld that gives a sense of the tool's significance, and more PC World stuff—put the effort in, they've even got a new centralised search bar to make it easy for you. I'm not sure what other sources we expect to exist for software topics like these that are not technical enough to be the subject of academic literature. I came here because it's a command-line package manager that I've heard of, which is a pretty good indication of substantial reach. — Bilorv ( talk) 22:05, 29 October 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of That '70s Show characters#Red Forman. MBisanz talk 14:19, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Red Forman

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

Fictional character failing WP:GNG. No SNGs are appropriate. Article is completely in universe plot description and there is no scholarly assessment of the character that would support a standalone article. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 19:53, 11 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 19:53, 11 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 12:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of That '70s Show characters#Eric Forman. MBisanz talk 14:19, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Eric Forman

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

Fictional character failing WP:GNG. No SNGs are appropriate. Article is completely in universe plot description and there is no scholarly assessment of the character that would support a standalone article. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 19:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 19:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 12:18, 19 October 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. Black Kite (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Iran Academia

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

Fails to meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), surces cited are self-published (like Lulu.com) and not independent (like https://iranacademia.com/). Pahlevun ( talk) 19:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 19:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 19:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 19:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 20:43, 4 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 20:43, 4 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Lulu is the publisher of the magazine. From my research, does not meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Happy to read other opinions, if any! gidonb ( talk) 23:45, 6 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Weak support I've just had another quick look and tidy, and added a couple of things relating to the mutual antagonism with the Iranian government. I agree that the sources are rather thin, but perhaps due to the cultural hegemony of the English language press? It probably has more political relevance than I am able to assess, and might be of some importance to Iranian ex-pats. Not going to fight for it, but it seems a pity to lose it altogether. Laterthanyouthink ( talk) 07:15, 9 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Thank you, Laterthanyouthink, for your work on this entry! Can you point me to sources that are BOTH independent of the subject and published, if any? gidonb ( talk) 13:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 21:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 12:17, 19 October 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 14:18, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Kukurmara Higher Secondary School

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

Schools are no longer inherently notable. This fails WP:NCORP.Referenecing is to listings about the school FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 11:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 11:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 11:59, 19 October 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 14:18, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Pugazh (actor)

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

After observing that the article has been flagged for notability concerns by Onmyway22, I did a private before search and it shows that the subject of the article is a non notable actor as do not satisfy any criterion from WP:NACTOR as they haven’t featured in multiple lead roles nor won any significant award(s)for actors. Furthermore they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them thus a WP:GNG fail also. Furthermore I can’t see RS optimized anywhere both in this article and a “before search” corroborates this. It appears their claim to notability is participating in a reality tv show which they didn’t even emerge successful. Celestina007 ( talk) 11:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 11:57, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 11:57, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 11:57, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 11:57, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
It is noted that Pugazh is a notable actor who emerged sucessful after the reality show. As for the actor not having been part of lead roles in movies, it is to be noted that he is currently in that process, for the movies are soon to be released. It is also noted that Pugazh also has a huge social media following owing to his popularity. Rramakash ( talk) 18:05, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
No source says they won the reality show If I’m mistaken please show me the source. Celestina007 ( talk) 18:33, 19 October 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 14:18, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Jack West (inventor)

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

An autobiography which fails to show notability as an entrepreneur, inventor, or musician. Cabayi ( talk) 09:35, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cabayi ( talk) 09:35, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Cabayi ( talk) 09:35, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Cabayi ( talk) 09:35, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 10:24, 19 October 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 14:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Gehan Rateb

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

I've tried, but I cannot find one non-trivial reference for this biography. She may have made the news in Arabic so happy to withdraw this nom if there is a non-trivial reference that I don't know how to find. Victuallers ( talk) 09:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Victuallers ( talk) 09:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete I can't find any reliable sources for this unreferenced article that has been tagged since 2008. WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 18:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Draftify - It seems like she used to be an Egyptian actress, singer, and music composer. I suggest draftifying until it's improved. However, I was unable to find reliable sources about her but added her IMDb profile in the external link section. To keep it we need reliable sources. Mommmyy ( talk) 06:07, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Draftifying is suitable for articles with the potential for expansion, or in cases where the subject is actively developing and sources are likely to accrue shortly (such as someone with a rising career, or a company about to launch a significant product, etc). In this case, the article has existed for 13 years, and in that time, no one has located any sources. Her own website is dead and her IMDB doesn't list any credits since 2013, indicating that she may have moved away from a career in the public eye - and making it unlikely that any more content about her will emerge. Thus, deletion rather than draftification is appropriate. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 23:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. For now beacuse BLPPROD is wrong deletion tag as it has couple of external links in external links section. Please see WP:BLPPROD once. Thank you ! Fade258 ( talk) 09:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:NACTOR, no significant coverage to be found. Argument about WP:BLPPROD is irrelevant since that isn't the deletion process being applied here. 144.71.77.240 ( talk) 13:01, 27 October 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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Jeffrey Ngai Pang Chin

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

Fails bio, refbomb but most if not all of the ref can't proof notability. Article build by SPA, possibly sock of the Foundation banned User:蟲蟲飛 - AINH ( talk) 09:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete. There are only reliable sources passing mention. No in-depth reliable sources. Many of the sources don't seem to be independent from the subject. Sun8908  Talk 16:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete. As a poet he does not seem meeting WP:N. The aritcle is very likely to be contributed by Jeffery Ngai himself, who is very likely the owner of WMF banned User:蟲蟲飛. -- UjuiUjuMandan ( talk) 17:17, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Please don't speculate the ownership of wiki account with public figure. Probably Jeffrey Ngai is not passing Wikipedia:Notability (academics) but it is way too wide guess to claim User:蟲蟲飛 = Jeffrey Ngai thus this article is autobiography. Matthew hk ( talk) 17:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note that forum post https://lihkg.com/thread/2698839 CANNOT be a reliable source to claim this is autobiography Matthew hk ( talk) 17:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
One more comment. It seems too coincidence that Jeffrey Ngai has made a poem 萤火虫, which has this line "蟲蟲飛，星星飛。", but "點蟲蟲, 蟲蟲飛" itself is a traditional children song. Jeffrey Ngai's poem seem more like a derived work or heavily inspired by the song. And obviously just one coincidence cannot prove it is an autobiography . Rather, created by globally lock editor, can it be a speedy deletion reason? I am rusty on deletion policy. Matthew hk ( talk) 11:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Comment Probably notable in its own field, however, not in general public sense of WP:GNG. Up to you guys checking Wikipedia:Notability (academics) of this person. Matthew hk ( talk) 17:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Also since he is an author (source [31]), probably need to check are there any book review or periodical about him as well (which the periodical need to be free of COI such as he is the editor himself) But i would guesstimate from google search it does not have these articles. Matthew hk ( talk) 17:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This newspaper have book review and interview with this writer, seen http://ep.ycwb.com/epaper/ycwb/resfile/2020-03-22/A06/ycwb20200322A06.pdf. -- 14.0.174.181 ( talk) 05:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC) — 14.0.174.181 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
    I really not sure interview counted as primary source or not. And then really not sure WP:RSN treat any of the Chinese state media, or regional newspaper owned by regional branch of Communist Party, are reliable source. Note that ycwb.com = 金羊网, is operated by 羊城晚报, which in turn owned by 羊城晚报报业集团, which according the newspaper itself ( [32]), the newsgroup is owned by CCP Guangdong branch's Publicity Department
    But at least as a Hong Kong based author, he seems did not appear in any of the Hong Kong newspapers (edit: i mean real HK newspaper instead those owned by Chinese gov that no one really read; the author does not appear in Sing Tao or Ming Po or Oriental Daily that owned by pro-Chinese businessmen. 11:58, 20 October 2021 (UTC)). Matthew hk ( talk) 09:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
    I got much difficulty to comprehend what you're trying to mean. Would you please clarify your message? If in case that doesn't work I would suggest with all due respect that you should focus on Wikipedia version(s) of the language(s) which you are familiar with. 124.217.188.201 ( talk) 09:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
    Dude....you, 124.217.188.201, and 124.217.188.195, are obvious WP:DUCK. Matthew hk ( talk) 10:42, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
    For personal opinion as i am rusty in en-wiki that i dont read everything in WP:RSN. I would say interview cannot be a prove for notability, and every single state media of Chinese cannot treat as a reliable source as default stance. Of course when the media reporting a merely a non-political CCP party member, or a state owned company, there is little COI in it so that probably state media can be used in case by case basic. but the behaviour of keep publish the same interview in different state owned newspapers, seems there is agenda in it that state media tried to print "reliable source" for zh-wiki as the zh-wiki counterpart has a few afd for a few years. Matthew hk ( talk) 11:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
    @124.217.188.201: For the record it was Matthew HK who first posted his remarks as a reply to my comment. [33] He moved his reply subsequently and I was not aware of this edit when I responded to his reply. 124.217.188.201 ( talk) 11:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Dude.....stick to the same ip next time instead of catching as WP:DUCK by vote stacking in the same ip range 124.217.188.X. The use of {{ spa}} is legit. Matthew hk ( talk) 04:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
"Its"? Isn't this an insult? 124.217.188.201 ( talk) 13:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep. A notable person as demonstrated by the referenced materials. 124.217.188.201 ( talk) 08:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC) Sock vote struck.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 13:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
@Bbb23: Rationale? 124.217.188.201 ( talk) 07:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC) reply
Comment and once again the drama of emerge of SPA Matthew hk ( talk) 09:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
The zh-wiki counterpart of this afd (but as deletion review ) also has ip edits that crossed out that deemed those edits are made by suspected sock: zh:Wikipedia:存廢覆核請求#魏鵬展 Matthew hk ( talk) 10:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
FYI: 124.217.188.* has been blocked in zhwiki since they are the sock of the globally banned user: User:蟲蟲飛 per zhwiki AIV report. SCP -20 00 11:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
In en-wiki, I would get the answer that ip can't link (tag) to any registered user by CU. Some ip are obvious sock they will block it but not officially tag them as sock. They are duck already due to obvious vote stacking by 124.217.188.201, and 124.217.188.195. While 14.0.174.181, this is the right venue: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/124.217.188.195. Matthew hk ( talk) 11:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Basically in zh-wiki, the deletion review said there is "a lot" of interview of Jeffrey Ngai are copy and paste (not changing a single word) published by Chinese Central Government owned Ta Kung Pao, Wen Wei Po, and their web-version counterpart from the same media company, which seems the Chinese Government want to print a lot of publication to try to "prove" he notability . And apart of these state-owned media and copy and paste articles, the subject is absent from main stream media or notable literature periodical (which peer reviewed by real notable academics) Matthew hk ( talk) 10:58, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Comment Don’t think that enwiki admin doesn’t speak Chinese, then you can lie. There are newspapers and magazines from different places in the article, including not only Hong Kong media, but also media from all over the world. See [34]、 [35]、 [36]。Please do not introduce the struggle of Hong Kong's literary world to enwiki. lihkg.com has appeared canvassing for deletion of this Article. Please note that real puppets are a very serious matter.-- 14.0.169.86 ( talk) 12:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC) — 14.0.169.86 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Dont worry on canvassing, I had told the admins and clerk (somewhere here and here; i think my brain has messed up so that i dont mention lihkg in this ANI but i falsely remember i had) that lihkg has running a cult already, admin can identify vote stacking (for deletion for lihkg POV on this author) as well as obvious SPA that no edit in other field (which is you), or obvious keep voting stack from the same ip range. Also, https://kowloonpost.hk is a web media that no one read, it just another content farm by the Central gov owned mediagroup. I probably vote keep if he appears in Apple Daily or Ming Po (oh wait, Chinese gov closed down Apple Daily, which i personally think this newspaper actually has a lot of both pro-Chinese and pro-democracy content ) Matthew hk ( talk) 12:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Also note that editors that have quite a lot of edits, would probably summoned by Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Hong Kong to this afd. This including me. It is weak to accuse other editors that placed their deletion "vote" (but wikipedia is !vote) is canvassed offsite. But since you those ip guys have no edits outside afd at all, you are more likely WP:DUCK. Matthew hk ( talk) 12:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
The latest comment on that LIHKG post was three days ago, long before this deletion nom. The real puppets are all these IPs that are from the same ISP and have almost no edit at all recently and just suddenly come and vote to keep the article- AINH ( talk) 12:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, not really relevant to this afd but why has the infobox got is nationality as Hong Kong? as HK is a part of China shouldn't his nationality be Chinese? Also its not that helpful that most of the article's references are situated at the end of the first paragraph, so which is related to each piece of info?, a fair number look like author interviews so may not be suitable (?), above discussion is also quite disturving so unless other stronger sources are found i'm leaning to a delete on this. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:57, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply
    Commenting on the concern for nationality: Not all Hong Kong residents are Chinese. One need not change the nationality to Chinese before being a permanent resident and getting a permanent ID card. see right of abode in Hong Kong. However, I do agree that "Hong Kong" should not be a nationality. When writing articles (not talking about Ngai), I would write "Hong Kong" as citizenship if I do not find enough information to say one's nationality is Chinese or whatsoever. Though if one's ethnicity is Chinese, his nationality is very likely to be Chinese (Hong Kong). Sun8908  Talk 03:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete Greetings. I happen to be here for I am chasing down the puppet accounts of User:蟲蟲飛 (hereafter CCF), a former admin banned by the Foundation for doing nasty things . I was the user PROVING RIGOROUSLY that CCF is Jeffrey Ngai Pang Chin. This link refers (Chinese only). If one cares to read the deduction, please feel free to drop me a line so I can translate it in English. I put it to you that, some remaining ZH admins uphold logic like "CCF is a girl, so she can't be Jeffrey Ngai Pang Chin". This is a threat, as CCF by then could always return with new accounts and bypass the global lock by just SAYING "I keep a dog, CCF doesn't. so I ain't CCF." Oh by the way, you may want to take a look on the page creator Sexymary and see how similar this is to the crazy logic some admins uphold. This is also one of the many alleged puppet accounts. Anyway, let's go back to the page deletion. If one accept my DEDUCTION (not induction, not guessing, not gut feeling), then the Chinese version (just got deleted after a huge debate between CCF's friends and foes) is an autobiography. I confirm that the current English version is a direct translation of the concerned chinese version of a particular time. So this entails the fact of this page being also an autobiography. Even if you insist stupid logic of "CCF is a she so she can't be a he", Jeffrey_Ngai_Pang_Chin is of ZERO NOTABILITY in the Hong Kong / Chinese community, not to mention if an English page is of any use. Although I cannot deny that he is becoming more famous for all the nasty things on wiki LOL. If I am also allowed to travel outside the scope: I also mentioned in the Chinese delete discussion that since CCF is/was an very experienced former wiki admin, AND, he keeps returning to wiki in an non-stop manner(and got IP and accounts banned), one has to exercise caution to (1) stop the globally banned user from returning, and, (2) stop one for "wiki-rules-tailor-making" a "look-independent" interview so that the wiki page can be restated. -- Ihatesmoker ( talk) 11:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC) reply
I don't think it's useful to "prove" whether the subject is CCF here. Analyzing the "sources" is a better way to let users on enwiki see if this is notable or worth an article. Sun8908  Talk 06:38, 28 October 2021 (UTC) reply
With all due respect, what I was proposing was that the thread is actually a self-written autobiography. -- Ihatesmoker ( talk) 08:06, 29 October 2021 (UTC) reply
I do agree that it is likely to be an autobiography, but it is not necessarily related to CCF. Sun8908  Talk 08:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC) reply
"It FEELS like an autobiography" is an induction, while the above mentioned link in Chinese is a deduction. Whether one accepts the IP evidences I quoted is a personal choice. I put it to you that if those evidences were discovered at the time, CCF would have definitely banned for being a puppet of 大撚, which entails being Jeffrey Ngai Pang Chin. -- Ihatesmoker ( talk) 09:41, 29 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Fine, my intention to comment was a reminder. Sun8908  Talk 12:40, 29 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but am open to changing to delete if the sources are refuted. In this edit, 14.0.169.86 ( talk · contribs) presented three sources. I don't see direct engagement from the participants in the discussion about these sources aside from some commentary by Matthew hk. Each of the sources contain interview content, but I believe there is sufficient non-interview content for Jeffrey Ngai Pang Chin ( simplified Chinese: 魏鹏展; traditional Chinese: 魏鵬展) to pass Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria (if the sources are reliable):

    People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

    If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.

    I am open to changing to delete if editors explain why these three sources cannot be used to establish notability. Matthew hk is the only editor who specifically discussed the sources such as calling the Kowloon Post "another content farm by the Central gov owned mediagroup" (is there a reliable source that verifies this?) and noting that "Basically in zh-wiki, the deletion review said there is 'a lot' of interview of Jeffrey Ngai are copy and paste" (is that the case for these articles as I haven't seen this demonstrated?).

    From the consensus on the reliable sources noticeboard about WP:XINHUA:

    Xinhua News Agency is the official state-run press agency of the People's Republic of China. There is consensus that Xinhua is generally reliable for factual reporting except in areas where the government of China may have a reason to use it for propaganda or disinformation. Xinhua is also generally reliable for the views and positions of the Chinese government and its officials. For subjects where the Chinese government may be a stakeholder, the consensus is almost unanimous that Xinhua cannot be trusted to cover them accurately and dispassionately; some editors favour outright deprecation because of its lack of editorial independence. There is no consensus for applying any one single label to the whole of the agency. Caution should be exercised in using this source, extremely so in case of extraordinary claims on controversial subjects or biographies of living people. When in doubt, try to find better sources instead; use inline attribution if you must use Xinhua.

    I will apply the Xinhua source analysis standard to the Chinese government-owned or affiliated sources listed here. Regarding the coverage of the poet Jeffrey Ngai Pang Chin, I do not see "a reason to use [the coverage] for propaganda or disinformation" so the sources do not seem unreliable on that basis. Is this the wrong assessment, or should the sources be unreliable on a different basis?

    My analysis does not (I added the missing word "not" as I had intended to say "does not" not "does". Cunard ( talk) 00:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)) take into consideration whether Jeffrey Ngai Pang Chin is the WMF banned User:蟲蟲飛 as this is unproven and does not affect the notability analysis. reply

    Here are quotes from each source:

    1. 邓昭祺 (2020-03-22). "现身说法 谈写诗" [Speak out. Talk about writing poems] (PDF). Yangcheng Evening News (in Chinese). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2021-11-01. Retrieved 2021-11-01.

      Yangcheng Evening News is a newspaper with a circulation of over one million. The first article notes: "Wei Pengzhan's "New Poetry Creation Method" is a very distinctive monograph on the theory and techniques of new poetry creation. The author is a young poet, and it is now convincing to speak from him. ... The technique explained by Wei Pengzhan here is often used in ancient metrical poems." The article contains interview content.

      The sidebar that contains an interview in a second article notes: "Born in Hong Kong in 1980, poet, editor-in-chief of "Fiction and Poems", Hong Kong President of Fiction and Poetry Association, Doctor of Literature. Author of poetry theory "New Poetry Creation Method" and poetry collection "Looking for the most beautiful scar in the darkest place"."

    2. "一月一新詩 疫下小確幸: 魏鵬展推動兩岸四地採詩 堅守七載" [A new poem each month, a little fortunate under the pandemic: Ngai Pang Chin promotes the collection of poems across the strait and four places and sticks to it for seven years] (PDF). Lion Rock Daily [ zh (in Chinese). 2020-09-30. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2021-11-01. Retrieved 2021-11-01.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "Ngai Pang Chin studied for a master's degree in Chinese Language and Literature at the University of Hong Kong in his early years, and later studied for a Ph.D. in Chinese at Sun Yat-Sen University, specializing in classical literature. From studying ancient poems to writing new poems, Ngai Pang Chin bluntly said that new poems are only a hundred years old and can be developed." The article contains interview content.

    3. "魏鵬展 香港詩人的堅持" [Ngai Pang Chin: The Perseverance of Hong Kong Poets]. Kowloon Post (in Chinese). 2021-02-08. Archived from the original on 2021-11-01. Retrieved 2021-11-01.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "Ngai Pang Chin is a Chinese teacher at the Prince's Primary School, but he also has an identity-the chairman of the Hong Kong Fiction and Poetry Association and the editor-in-chief of "Fiction and Poetry". His connection with new poetry originated from middle school." The article contains interview content.

    Cunard ( talk) 08:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  • @ Cunard: As a local HKers, I confirm that the latter two, namely Lion Rock Daily and Kowloon Post, are of no significance in Hong Kong. In fact this is my first time learning their existence. From my brief research just now, they are all funded by pro-Beijing camps, cover only the so-called communist-politically correct propaganda. Put aside the politics (as some WMF banned chinese users were alleged to have illegally obtained personal information of HK wiki users and turned them in to the newly established "National Security Bureau"), you can tell how popular they are by browsing their facebook pages( https://www.facebook.com/lionrockdailyhk/)(https://www.facebook.com/KowloonPost/): less than 5 likes in average per post. Some may argue that they have several thousand followers. Please also take a look on the recommendation page: fake accounts with 10 to 0 friend give 5 stars reviews in SIMPLIFIED chinese, suggested that they are of non-Hong Kong background. I doubt if any reputable newspaper would do that. They are of no impact, still they are funded to operate. You may ask "so why are they funded?". Put aside politics :)
Now, for the first source you have quoted, Yangcheng Evening News. I have just skimmed through the pdf article you have quoted and can't wait to share my findings. By the way, I am in no position to suggest the credibility of the Yangcheng Evening News, as the habitat in publishing varies from country to country. One can't expect there is any anti-Kim newspaper in the North Korea I assume. Okay, let's go back to the article. I have found the following interesting:
1. The Chinese characters right above the picture of CCF is 香港作家系列11 (Hong Kong Author Series 11). My first instinct was to search for the articles for other authors in the same series. I did so by googling 羊城晚报+"香港作家系列" (羊城晚报 being the name of the newspaper). the CCF one is the only result.
One may suggests others have expired and therefore no on the internet. WRONG: the first result is from the official website of the newspaper. So where are 1-10? any 12? I ain't suggesting there wasn't any 1-10. I just want to try if 1-10 were famous or like the "Hong Kong JK Rowling". But no, there isn't any.
One may also suggests that I shall use chinese search engine instead of google. Not to mention I did manage to search for the CCF one on google. I have tried using the chinese search engine but in vain. BUT THEN I HAVE DIGGED UP THE STORY OF THIS SERIES. The most relevant and official result is http://ep.ycwb.com/epaper/ycwb/html/2020-01/19/content_7_230293.htm . It says "自2019年7月至今，羊城晚报开辟湾区文艺评论专版，通过访谈、约稿等形式，以每周一版的规模对粤港澳三地的文学界进行全方位扫描，陆续推出“香港作家系列”“澳门作家系列”策划，引起广泛关注。经过各方面的努力推动，粤港澳三地文学的交流互动进一步热络起来，关于粤港澳大湾区文学的历史回望及未来建构也成为热门话题。" My focuses are:
通过访谈(through interview)、约稿 (call for a draft). The newspaper actually invited the authors to submit articles (and there were also interview section).
陆续推出“香港作家系列”(Hong Kong Author Series “澳门作家系列”策划 (Macau/Macao Author Series). I tried to search for 羊城晚报+"澳门作家系列". dah dah! I finally found where 1-10 are. CCF is the only Hong Kong author covered. Correct me if I am wrong. I truly can't find any trace of others Hong Kongers.
2. The section right of the picture of CCF is a Q&A section. I tried searching for the editor/reporter of this article 邹中海 but again in vain. It appears that 邹中海 may not be a regular reporter/editor. The Q&A consisted of only 8 short questions and of no depth. Base on the published time (during COVID, border shut down, they couldn't meet, only online communication) and how shallow the Q&A section was, together with the picture of CCF was obviously a self-submitted one, I think I can safely proposed that the Q&A was not seriously done, like the one in 60 minutes. I further propose that the format was likely to be one-way: not really two-way Q&A, but CCF submitted his response to 邹中海 email/SMS only. If one is interested, you can translate the following official Q&A ( http://ep.ycwb.com/epaper/ycwb/h5/html5/2020-03/22/content_6_246771.htm) using google translate: the Q&A section is a joke.
3. The bottom left of the pdf, the article on the left of the two book covers: title: 我的文学路 (My lit. Journey). The two chinese characters on its left: 自敍 (autobiography). The entire autobiography use first person description. Fair enough, it is a autobiography after-all. So this part was submitted entirely by CCF.
conclusion: I am not sure if Yangcheng Evening News is reputable. What I can tell is, this so called article consisted of a long paragraph of self-written garbage and a very short section of Q&A which was of very low quality. The entire series is fishy.
@ Cunard: you have also mentioned "My analysis does take into consideration whether Jeffrey Ngai Pang Chin is the WMF banned User:蟲蟲飛 as this is unproven and does not affect the notability analysis." This link refers (Chinese only). The Check User was not done solely because the concerned edits were like half a decade ago. The deduction of Jeffrey Ngai Pang Chin = CCF , in my humble opinion, is flawless. -- Ihatesmoker ( talk) 15:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • @ Ihatesmoker: thank you for taking the time to provide a very detailed analysis of the sources! Your analysis is precisely what I was looking for. Before your comment, I found a lot of discussion in this AfD about other topics but could not find a direct rebuttal of all three of 14.0.169.86 ( talk · contribs)'s sources.

    Regarding "My analysis does take into consideration whether Jeffrey Ngai Pang Chin is the WMF banned User:蟲蟲飛 as this is unproven and does not affect the notability analysis". I actually meant to write "My analysis does not take into consideration". I've fixed my comment to add "not". Though it does not affect my position on whether to retain or delete this article, this is really interesting analysis, though, thank you for sharing that. Cunard ( talk) 00:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. czar 07:16, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Shabakeh

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

Fails to meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) criteria Pahlevun ( talk) 19:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 19:57, 4 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 19:58, 4 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 19:58, 4 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:45, 11 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Why are you arguing that a magazine does not meet a notability guideline for people? -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 23:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: That the NBIO argument is totally inapplicable, so it really shouldn't be weighed. I don't see a real consensus for deletion yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 07:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply

AfDs for this article:

Alaa Najjar

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

There are only a few news sources about him, The page must be checked again. Emir Alemdar 80 ( talk) 07:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Emir Alemdar 80 ( talk) 07:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Also who made this deletion request is a sock puppet for the user: علي أبو عمر He usually uses Arabic and Turkish names. And a message to: Emir Alemdar 80. Alaa article will remain and you will soon be banned. -- Osps7 ( talk) 17:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy keep and close - I would be bold and remove the AfD template, but will leave that to a "closing admin", as I believe that's the procedure. This frivolous nomination is by a single-purpose sockpuppet, and should not have to wait seven days for closure. -- Fjmustak ( talk) 18:24, 20 October 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. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 16:12, 28 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Eric Falkenstein

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

Businessman who has only received coverage in a couple of unreliable cryptocurrency publications, fails WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 07:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith ( talk) 02:58, 22 September 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 10:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. His most cited paper , Preferences for stock characteristics as revealed by mutual fund portfolio holdings. in The journal of finance.
  • Weak keep. Passes criteria 1 and 7 of WP:NACADEMIC. It looks like he co-developed a notable test used in credit risk modeling/management, the Falkenstein and Boral Test. See [37] pages 62-69. Lots of hits when you search those two names together in academic search engines. 4meter4 ( talk) 04:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 12:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Being published in two or three journals isn't an indicator of notability. An academic with an h-index of 14 doesn't strike me as meeting WP:NACADEMIC. I would be more persuaded of 4meter4's argument re the Falkenstein and Boral Test if their paper on it had more than 215 citations. Writing a couple of books doesn't mean someone meets WP:NAUTHOR unless there's clear indication that those books are notable. As someone that has self-published a book and then paid for it to be reviewed (Kirkus says of itself "As an unpublished or self-published author, it can be a relentless struggle to attract a significant amount of attention to your book or manuscript. By purchasing a Kirkus indie review, authors can have the opportunity to build some name recognition and get noticed by agents, publishers and other industry influencers.") I see this article as part of Falkenstein's self-promotion. I am happy to be persuaded to keep if more references can be added that show that his work has been written about in depth by reliable, independent publications. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 17:06, 4 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The citation profile is not indicative of a distinguished research career. The book reviews fail to be independent, in-depth in their content, and/or reliably published. XOR'easter ( talk) 22:43, 4 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, as per Curb Safe Charmer. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:48, 7 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. He has only two noteworthy scholarly publications, among other lesser ones, but I think they are significant enough to make a case for WP:PROF#C1: (1) "Preferences for stock characteristics as revealed by mutual fund portfolio holdings", a solo paper with 4-digit citation counts in Google Scholar, and (2) RiskCalc, a system for credit risk assessment apparently developed by Falkenstein, Boral, and Carty; Google Scholar has nearly 2000 hits for "RiskCalc" and their joint work describing it has over 200 citations. (This appears to be the same as the "Falkenstein and Boral Test" cited by 4meter4.) — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, as per Curb Safe Charmer. Falkenstein “was among the top influencer bloggers according to the Wall Street Journal”, that is, in a paywalled article from 2010. The h-index number is meaningless unless we know what is typical in that field. It would just about be enough to get tenure as a physicist; but Falkenstein is not a physicist! Nwhyte ( talk) 20:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last relist. Does he hit NPROF or no?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 06:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. His most cited paper, Preferences for stock characteristics as revealed by mutual fund portfolio holdings in The journal of finance. has been cited an extraordinary 1376 times. One work of that sort is enouht to show someone influential ,regadless of subject, even though he is not primarily an academic. DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Looking at related articles on Google Scholar via the link at the bottom of Falkenstein's listing is interesting on two fronts: firstly it shows that 1376 isn't an exceptional amount of citations in this field of academia, and secondly we can click through to other authors and answer Nwhyte's comment above "the h-index number is meaningless unless we know what is typical in that field". Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 08:59, 28 October 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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Athanasios Kafkalides

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

With regret. I can't find any sources to suggest the topic meets WP:GNG or WP:NPROF. The only source I can find is this family website, but perhaps that's a better place to host this material. The same article is at Greek Wikipedia but I don't see any additional sources there (though I don't read Greek; relying on Google Translate). Thoughts? Ajpolino ( talk) 02:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino ( talk) 02:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino ( talk) 02:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I now see from Twinkle/AfD magic that there was a previous AfD from 2005 I missed in the history. I'm not sure that discussion adds much. We now have the Greek-character name (see link above). I looked for obituaries or any other source without luck. If there's something I missed, I'm happy to be educated. Ajpolino ( talk) 02:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Fringe psychiatrist has made no impact on mainstream literature based on GS citations. Of local interest only. Xxanthippe ( talk) 03:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC). reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 09:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 06:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The only source on him in Greek is a biography written by his son Zephyros Kafkalides (Ζέφυρος Καυκαλίδης in Greek), published in 2011. I suspect that the IP that created the article in 2005 was him, since whoever wrote its content had access to unpublished personal meterial of Athanasios Kafkalides. Later, after the publication of the book, he came back as user "Zephyros1948". Btw, the article in the Greek WP is just a translation of this one. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 ( talk) 06:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
    PS. Keep Sources added by user Spiros71 show clues of notability. Some I had them removed, since they were not third-party, independent and/or reliable sources, but that doesn't change the overall impact made by the rest of the additional references. The main issue now is to keep the WP:NPOV in the article. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 ( talk) 20:00, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Please revisit the page to see updated links and references. Spiros71 ( talk) 09:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Comment The above user Spiros71 seems to have a connection to the subject [38], [39], [40]. As fas as the sources added: one is only his son talking about him, the other is a brief presentation of his theory based on himself, and the third article, the only one that refers specifically to him, is a publication of a German psychoanalytic society of a specific trend, e.g. not a classic academic journal. Anyway, Kafkalidis obviously doesn't meet neither the general notability criteria nor those for academics and scientists. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 ( talk) 10:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
      The above user Chalk19 appears to be very convinced that an article on a pioneering Greek psychiatrist with a number of references in third-party journals and a considerable bibliography, should not be part of Wikipedia, and appears to be spending a lot of time and energy to that end, i.e. by downgrading specific academic journals. I am quite convinced to the contrary. Spiros71 ( talk) 11:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
      @ Spiros71: You have your opinion and I have mine. You think I spend a lot of time and energy to have the artcle deleted. Well, you appear to be spending a lot of time to have Kafkalides in WP. You even created an article in Greek WP on his son [41]. Seems that you have spent a lot of time to have the whole family included in a couple of WPs ! ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 ( talk) 11:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
      I spend a lot of time on numerous articles that I believe deserve the world's attention and I happen to have specialist knowledge on a number of different fields that may come in handy in this, as well as in my ability to appreciate what is encyclopedic material and what is not. I do not spend any time on trying to get content deleted. My crusade is not to retract, is to give. And it so happens that this article in its 1st nomination already got a '''keep''' consensus, which is an indication that I am not the only one thinking that way. Spiros71 ( talk) 11:43, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
      Υour approach is "psycological", not base on WP's guidelines on notability. What you may think on who deserves the world's attention via an article in WP is irrelevant, regardless if you are right or wrong on a subject. It's only the WP policy that matters. So, writing an article on a no-notable person is not creative, and deleting is not destructive, as you implied against my stance; quite the contrary. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 ( talk) 18:12, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply
      If you wish to argue about each other rather than about whether this topic meets WP:N, please do so at one of your talk pages. Ajpolino ( talk) 18:43, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep. Many books cite Kafkalides. Search also Google Scholar for his impact in modern literature-- Kalogeropoulos ( talk) 05:17, 24 October 2021 (UTC) reply

GS cites are tiny, and I can't find these many books. Xxanthippe ( talk) 05:31, 24 October 2021 (UTC). reply
  • Keep, as there are many books which cite him Jackattack1597 ( talk) 19:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The argument (or maybe more accurately WP:VAGUEWAVE) repeated above that he has been frequently cited would be a basis for a WP:PROF#C1 claim, if true. However, it appears to be false. On Google Scholar, searching for author:A-Kafkalides finds only single-digit citation counts except for one work, The knowledge of the womb, listed as having 37 citations. I also searched for author:Καυκαλίδης but found zero additional citations. This is far far too few to pass WP:PROF#C1. No other claim to notability is evident in the article (which is puffed up with brief mentions that do not count towards WP:GNG) nor has been identified above. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:28, 26 October 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 13:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Lee Evans (producer)

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

Promotional article; remarkably similar to the biography on his website. Also badly fails GNG with no RS available. Best thing on google is this blog interview. Mottezen ( talk) 04:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mottezen ( talk) 04:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mottezen ( talk) 04:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Mottezen ( talk) 04:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Mottezen ( talk) 04:29, 12 October 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 06:41, 19 October 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 Montrose Area School District. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 ( talk) 05:16, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Teacher strikes in pennsylvania

Teacher strikes in pennsylvania (  | 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 with WP:GNG guideline.  ||   Orbit Wharf   💬 05:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 09:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 09:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 15:04, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 10:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 06:40, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Montrose Area School District as Diannaa has indicated the content was copied from originally. That addresses the bathwater without throwing out the baby and WP:ATTREQ. From there, a splitting discussion is possible. – The Grid ( talk) 18:29, 19 October 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 14:16, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Samoa–Spain relations

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

Although this looks like a well sourced article, it's about relations between Samoa and European Union not Spain. There is a lack of third party coverage of actual relations between Spain and Samoa. LibStar ( talk) 05:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:34, 19 October 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 Scouting in California#Marin Council. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 ( talk) 05:12, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Marin Council

Marin Council (  | 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 Boy Scout council. This angelfire website about patches obviously can't confer notability on the subject, and this article in the local paper doesn't do that either. It's a plain fact that such councils simply do not generate the kind of coverage that makes em pass the GNG, and that the articles on them are little more than bulletin boards (in this case, about the camps they run) with primary sourcing. Drmies ( talk) 03:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 03:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 03:43, 19 October 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 Across the Universe. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 03:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Lizzie Bravo and Gayleen Pease

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

WP:DEL-REASON #8: "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline". The content of the page can easily be subsumed into the " Across the Universe" song article, given that the sole point of notability about Brazzo and Pease is a single moment when the pair contributed to a Beatles recording. A Google search turns up very little of interest, in terms of reliable sources. A 2015 BBC piece and a more recent interview at CultureSonar provide some extra detail in the form of Brazzo's recollections years after the event; but again, this can easily be accommodated at the song article. JG66 ( talk) 03:05, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WWGB ( talk) 04:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WWGB ( talk) 04:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. WWGB ( talk) 04:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WWGB ( talk) 04:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Merge with " Across the Universe": I haven't been able to find anything significant outside of their contribution to the song either. Tkbrett (✉) 12:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Merge – no question. – zmbro ( talk) 12:57, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Merge to Across the Universe. Not independently notable. Everything can be covered in the article on the recording of the song. Pawnkingthree ( talk) 13:05, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Merge per nom, yes. -- Lockley ( talk) 03:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 03:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Baltimore and Ohio 4500

Baltimore and Ohio 4500 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 03:07, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 03:07, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Its notibility is being the world's first USRA locomotive, how is that insignificant? Mr. Railroader ( talk) 03:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
I suggest you read WP:N. Notability in the Wikipedia sense is different than the dictionary definition of the word. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 03:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Which section..? Mr. Railroader ( talk) 04:30, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Oh boy, bare links to a archive.org page. If it was a notable example of the class, it should be kept as an article. I don't see that it's registered on the NRHP... Article needs work. Oaktree b ( talk) 13:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I think the references, as well as its status as a Historic Mechanical Engineering Landmark, are enough to establish notability. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 14:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: This source and this one detail the history and design, the Smithsonian provides significant coverage, and this site has a collection of reliable sources under the Class Q-3 (Locobase 1038) section, one of which is already on the page. This is enough to pass WP: GNG. Heartmusic678 ( talk) 11:54, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: I find it hard to understand how this locomotive is not significant and why it does not deserve it's own article. It is one of two pieces that are sole survivors of modern B&O steam power, it is the first USRA light mikado ever produced and done so in 20 days, it is the sole survivor of the entire Q class for the B&O, it is an ASME National Historic Mechanical Engineering Landmark, and it survived being cut up by an gentleman who worked for the B&O early in his life. If the stars had not aligned, this engine never would have been saved. All of the references can be cited and cleaned up but a notification for deletion is way out of line. Please look at the references below as confirmation of information and reasoning. Furthermore, please look at the citation below regarding deletion as the page is being built on and improved. It states: "Competence: Nominators for deletion should demonstrate a reasonable level of competence. This means articles, categories or templates should not be nominated in a routine fashion, nor because one feels too lazy to check for sources, or if the content is still being built or improved.'''" [1], [2], [3], [4]

References

  1. ^ Smith, Adam. "Baltimore & Ohio #4500, Freight, USRA 2-8-2A". The American Society of Mechanical Engineers. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Retrieved 24 October 2021.
  2. ^ Rasmussen, Frederick. "Edward L. Striegel, 82, ran railroad parts firm, enriched B&O; museum". Baltimore Sun. Baltimore Sun. Retrieved 24 October 2021.
  3. ^ Gus, R. ""Light Mikado" type (2-8-2) Q3 Class #4500". rgusrail.com. Digimarc. Retrieved 24 October 2021.
  4. ^ "Mangojuice". "Wikipedia:Introduction to deletion process". Wikipedia. Wikipedia. Retrieved 24 October 2021.
IP editor, since you seem to be well versed on Wikipedia policy, you should also know that the rgusrail site is a WP:SPS and does not count towards establishing notability. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 14:33, 24 October 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 List of Marvel Comics characters: A. Based on arguments and precedence, merging seems like the suitable course here. Certainly no consensus to delete. (non-admin closure) Etzedek24 ( I'll talk at ya) ( Check my track record) 18:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Aquarius (Marvel Comics)

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

No non-primary sources present in article. This article compilation of five different fictional characters, and I can find no significant coverage of any of them from reliable, independent sources. – Pbrks ( t • c) 18:54, 11 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. – Pbrks ( t • c) 18:54, 11 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. – Pbrks ( t • c) 18:54, 11 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 02:38, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 03:42, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Patrick Maher (writer)

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

Appears to fail WP:AUTHOR, and there is a polite request for the article to be deleted by the subject here coming via an intermediary with a declared COI. Qt.petrovich ( talk) 09:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Qt.petrovich ( talk) 09:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Comment it would be helpful if @ Simplewikipedian: were able to tell us which parts of the article are false/misguided, if they know? Elemimele ( talk) 12:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Based on the sources from the article, Pleng's Song has received coverage in The Himalayan Times, The Jakarta Globe, and The Times of India, giving it coverage in at least 3 independent sources, making it a notable work under WP:NBOOK, and making Patrick Maher a notable author under WP:NAUTHOR The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. If there are issues with the content of the article, those should be resolved separately, but the subject appears notable. Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 15:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Weak delete I'm going to carefully go through the article and try to remove anything that cannot be verified by the sources provided, starting with the claims made by @ Simplewikipedian:. The verification of the highlighted issues (the colleges attended, the comments about his family, the claim that his first book is a bestseller in Japan) comes from an interview with Cybersansar, which despite being an interview with the subject, I cannot call a reliable source, as it appears to be a gossip blog with little to no journalistic oversight. I'm not sure about the "#1 in Amazon Japan" claim as the other source to claim this appears to be a legitimate newspaper. As for the book reviews being paid, I have no way of verifying that besides the word of Simplewikipedian. That said, the reviews only exist in archive form (allegedly at the request of the author) so that does give them less weight in my view. Taken as a whole, I'm having doubts that the coverage of the books is enough to meet WP:NBOOK, especially with the assertion that they were undisclosed paid reviews that were taken down later, which therefore casts doubt on the notability of the author, so I'm changing my !vote for now. Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 16:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Reply to commentsThis article has many false information about the person. The references to the universities attended are false. The comment about his mother is slanderous. The claim that the father was a physician is incorrect. The birthdate is incorrect. The claim that his first book was a best seller in Japan has no valid sources and is also false And there is also no evidence that he settled in Khlomngsamwa District, this also a false information The references on the book Pleng's Song that got archived were mostly paid, and they have been taken down by the publisher on request from the Subject himself.@ Qwaiiplayer: @ Elemimele: @ Qt.petrovich:@ আফতাবুজ্জামান:I would like to grab your attention to my comment. Simplewikipedian ( talk) 03:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC) reply
    • That's most helpful. If consensus ends up that Maher is notable enough to require an article, then the dodgy information can nevertheless be removed. The reference to a Japanese No. 1 best seller must be removed unless someone finds a reference pretty quick-like; it's not supported by the current one. There is no earthly reason to refer to a third, as-yet unpublished book; the author's birth-date is irrelevant and unsupported by any reference; his personal background including the information about his parents is sourced from an interview with him, which is not a reliable source, and could therefore be removed. If the information is slanderous, however, his dispute should be with the magazine that published the interview, as it claims he said very much what is repeated in the WP article. To be honest, I don't care much whether what remains remains, or is deleted; it will basically be an article that says he published two books that got decent reviews, and that's marginally-notable, harmless information that's already in the public sphere. Elemimele ( talk) 05:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC) reply
      • I agree the two self-published books are marginally notable information but I suggest we move forward with deletion. Still the information is not very remarkable and lacks sources. The fact that so many sources have been removed by new organizations supports the argument/request for deletion in my opinion. Thank you Simplewikipedian ( talk) 07:48, 5 October 2021 (UTC) reply
        • To be honest, the more I look at this, the weirder it looks. (1) Let's be clear, authors don't get to choose whether WP has an article or not; if they're notable, someone can write an article; it's only in marginal cases where someone's teetering on the brink of notability that their personal request can tip the balance; but (2) I hadn't noticed that both books are self-published. It surprised me, because I'd done a search for reviews, and Pleng's song in particular seemed to have reviews in sources I would normally regard as quite weighty. In general, self-published books rarely get that sort of coverage (unless the author is famous, ludicrously attractive and it's a quiet day in daytime TV...). (3) the problem of mis-information, if indeed the information is wrong, is not going to go away, because most of the WP information is still on other sites about Maher and the books; remember, we have to be cautious about whether someone claiming to act on behalf of Maher is indeed doing so; but (4) even with solid reviews in a good source, an author with only two published books, neither currently available(?), and little demonstration of lasting impact, is a bit edgy for notability. So far as I'm concerned, this could go either way. Elemimele ( talk) 15:50, 5 October 2021 (UTC) reply
          • I would like to add more, "The fact that neither the books are still available is a good point that I overlooked. It not only shows a lack of an enduring impact and notability of the two self-published books, but also provides further evidence that the sources were most likely temporary promotional pieces that had been paid for a long time ago (Now all eleven references that are available are being archived from the original). News sources do not take down authentic coverage. " Simplewikipedian ( talk) 14:22, 6 October 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Simplewikipedian has been blocked for socking and UPE. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:48, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given that the editor pushing deletion has been blocked indefinitely, relisting this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 22:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • VRT agent comment: I have been in communication through VRT with the subject of this article (as this person does not have a official website/email there is no way for me to verify the identity of the person emailing. However, I am reasonably confident the person emailing is the subject of this article).
    He asked me to summarize what he sent via email in this deletion discussion. He says similar points to Simplewikipedian above, who is blocked for concerns about using a previous blocked account (this account is a paid editor and not the subject of this article). This includes the references being paid for pieces which were not truthful and were written to promote, and therefore are not reliable or independent. He also claims that the point about one of his books being a bestseller is also false.
    Furthermore, in the email thread he asks for deletion of the article about him. As such, I suggest that in the event of no rough consensus the closer uses WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE to close the discussion as delete. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 12:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's take another crack at a consensus before considering WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE as the sole policy at play.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 02:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 03:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 03:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Beaches Outreach Project

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

Fails WP:GNG. 1 gnews hit, and an orphan article. LibStar ( talk) 01:16, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 01:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 01:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 03:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Ajker Patrika

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

No WP:SIGCOV. I did google search (in Bangla & English), but didn’t find anything. There are some refs on the article but none of them about this paper & some are just passing mentions. Fails WP:GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk) 01:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 01:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 01:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 03:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Porters Corner, Montana

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

A literal road corner with a few houses nearby. Montana Place Names (2009) doesn't mention it as a community. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Montana_Place_Names_from_Alzada_to_Zortm/08rAI9NEbcYC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=porters+corner&pg=PA210&printsec=frontcover wizzito | say hello! 00:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 00:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 00:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • delete as the only evidence I can find is a building at the corner which is gone now and about which I can find nothing. GHits that aren't pure clickbait refer to it to locate other things or as a waypoint on scenic drives. Mangoe ( talk) 02:21, 26 October 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 Fairmont Hot Springs Resort. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 03:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Fairmont Hot Springs, Montana

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

It's not an unincorporated community. It's a resort. wizzito | say hello! 00:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 00:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 00:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
If you are correct, then both the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) need correction more than this article. The USGS indicates that it is "Populated Place" (as opposed to simply a "Place"--somewhere that human activity occurs). Additionally, the USGS 1994 map for the area indicates both "Fairmont" (a variant name for Fairmont Hot Springs) and "Gregson Hot Springs" (a variant name for the Fairmont Hot Springs Resort). Butte North MDT uses a green sign for Fairmont Hot Springs, as opposed to the brown signs used for resorts, (for examplet Road sign for Blacktail Mountain resort). An Errant Knight ( talk) 05:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
The WP:GNIS is well known for its errors in type classification, so yes the USGS needs a lot of correction, hence the hundreds of AFDs we've gone through for places. Same for transportation departments in many states that use the USGS data, and their listings are regardless not the same as notability here. Reywas92 Talk 12:34, 19 October 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 Bighorn National Forest. ✗ plicit 03:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Burgess Junction, Wyoming

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

I highly doubt this is a named community, but instead a named intersection. There are places like Bear Lodge Resort ( http://bearlodgeresort.com) and a USDA RV park ( https://www.fs.usda.gov/recarea/bighorn/recarea/?recid=30912) nearby but they seem to use nearby Dayton, Wyoming as an address, with Bear Lodge using it likely as some sort of waypoint. Looks like there are newspapers.com results, but it might just be referring to it as a waypoint or an actual intersection. wizzito | say hello! 00:17, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 00:17, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 00:17, 19 October 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_October_19&oldid=1052914981"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 18 October 20 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Restoring to userspace ( User:Femonics/Farhat Bashir) per request. Please do not republish without addressing the sourcing issues as discussed. czar 07:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Farhat Bashir

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

Mentions of her only seem to be in passing and Seerab Technologies doesn't have an article so I can't see a valid WP:ATD. Despite the plethora of awards that she is supposed to have won, I can't see it being enough for WP:ANYBIO. The best sources I can find are what looks to be a social media profile page and a 3 sentence autobiography. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://web.archive.org/web/20211012180646/https://www.seerab.com/about-us/ No Her company's own website No No Not mentioned ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20211012181323/https://www.thedayspring.com.pk/seerab-maps-an-innovation-in-real-estate/ Yes Yes No Mentioned once ✘ No
https://www.pasha.org.pk/psha-ict-awards-2018/ ? ? No Not mentioned ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20211012181929/http://www.hultprizeat.com/www.hultprizeat.com/cust Yes Yes No Probably the best source out of the ones cited but I'm still not seeing how being a judge on a student competition is enough to meet GNG ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20211012182346/https://scientiamag.org/nasa-space-apps-challenge-pakistan-2019-a-success-story/ Yes Yes No Mentioned once ✘ No
https://scientiamag.org/nasa-space-apps-challenge-pakistan-2019-a-success-story/ Yes Yes No Mentioned once, seems to be same as above ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20211012182507/https://www.womentech.net/en-gb/global-ambassadors/Pakistan/Farhat/Bashir No She is an ambassador for this organisation No No 3 sentences on her, nothing else ✘ No
https://www.apollo.io/companies/CXO-Pakistan/5e574e2a8868950001212563?chart=count ? No User generated No Not mentioned ✘ 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) 06:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
I would have no objections to that Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:28, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Peter Sprigg

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

I doubt he is notable, and he is certainly not notable as a scientist. Wikisaurus ( talk) 23:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- lomrjyo 🐱 ( ✉ • 📝) 00:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. -- lomrjyo 🐱 ( ✉ • 📝) 00:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith ( talk) 11:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith ( talk) 11:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith ( talk) 11:35, 20 October 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 13:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Carina Damm

AfDs for this article:
Carina Damm (  | 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:MMABIO criteria as she only has 1 fight in a top tier promotion. Also fails WP:GNG as her fight coverage is mainly through routine sports report. ♡RAFAEL♡( talk) 16:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 16:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 16:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 16:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 16:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply


  • Delete Has only one top tier fight, a loss, and thus fails to meet WP:NMMA. Coverage is generally routine sports reporting. The only possible exceptions are on her being banned for testing at 20x the allowable level for steroids and about her subsequently submitting a fake urine sample. These days, I would say even that is fairly routine for sports reporting and I would call it insufficient to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa ( talk) 17:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:51, 19 October 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 Tech Data. While Billyatthewheels argued to keep the article per WP:NBUSINESSPERSON, questions about sources in relation to WP:NBIO and GNG were not answered. Multiple editors have suggested a redirect per WP:ATD. ( non-admin closure) 4meter4 ( talk) 15:48, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Rich Hume

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

Sources are all passing mentions like "Hume is the CEO of Tech Data" or online resumes. I don't see in-depth coverage in RS. Does not meet GNG. MB 17:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MB 17:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:48, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply

'Keep' I was double minded but I searched him and I think he passes the WP:BUSINESSPERSONOUTCOME. Just need to add some more references to make it more notable. This is my opinion. Thanks. Billyatthewheels ( talk) 19:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Could you show some of these source because two other editors could not find anything but passing mentions. MB 04:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Also, WP:BUSINESSPERSONOUTCOME is not a guideline or a policy. The correct notability guideline would be WP:NBIO Dr. Swag Lord ( talk) 20:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:50, 19 October 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 Arrow Electronics. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 16:00, 28 October 2021 (UTC) reply

SiliconExpert

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

Upon taking a closer look at the sources, I found these are promotional PR by the company. Not notable enough to pass WP:SIGCOV. Ramaswar (discuss) 16:57, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: The sources cited in the article relies heavily on press releases. Manufacturing.net, DigitalCommerce360, and ArenaSolutions are not reliable sources, even if one of the sources cites the Associated Press in its content. The article reads like an advertisement with such sources. Multi7001 ( talk) 14:40, 13 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: This is a notable company with a long history in the electronics and data science industries. I apologize if the article reads like an advertisement, but I will make changes to remove any promotional wording and back them up with more proper sources. I did try my best to include sources that are reputable, such as Electronic_Design_(magazine) and Manufacturing.net. But I do have more sources so I will add those in within the next 24 hours. Once those changes are made, there will be no objections, right? MWatari ( talk) 03:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
The article lacks reliable sources; if credible sources can be identified and added, if they exist, then it would lessen the risk of deletion. I recommend not adding press releases to the article unless used to confirm very specific and important biographical information. Moreover, the AFD process is a collective line of discussion, so let's wait and see what other users decide. Multi7001 ( talk) 04:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not seeing enough WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources; most of the references are press releases. OhNoitsJamie Talk 03:38, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to their parent company Arrow Electronics as per WP:ATD. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. I have been unable to find any references that meet NCORP criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing ++ 20:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keepstrike double !vote Thank you all for your patience. Note: Article has been updated to contain more references to support facts! Two references in regards to the partnership with Arrow Electronics. Two references regarding the parts database of SiliconExpert. And one reference on the Bill of Materials software.
I agree with the in-depth information *on the company*, so I've included an article from Design News that goes in-depth into the SiliconExpert product, which also includes screenshots from the software itself. Additionally, I've also supplied an article from ThomasNet (or Thomas Register), a reputable online registry for distribution and sourcing, detailing the Arrow and SiliconExpert partnership. The addition of these two articles should fulfill that requirement. MWatari ( talk) 03:21, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment You might have been better served by posting the best WP:THREE links to references here because I can see you went to considerable effort. The article now has a total of 16 references and you've added 5. Here's my take on the 5 you added:
Each reference needs to meet *all* of the criteria in NCORP, so for example, a reference that contains in-depth information provided by the company might meet CORPDEPTH but fail ORGIND. You should also understand that the criteria for using references to support facts is different and less stringent than the criteria to support notability. Also, an article that goes "in-depth" on the product but where the information was provided by the company still fails ORGIND and if it doesn't provide information *on the company* will also fail CORPDEPTH. So my take is that none of those added reference meet NCORP. HighKing ++ 11:18, 26 October 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. General consensus was that the sources provided satisfy the appropriate coverage requirements. After multiple relists, there was no consensus to delete the article. (non-admin closure) Etzedek24 ( I'll talk at ya) ( Check my track record) 23:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Matt Behrendt

Matt Behrendt (  | 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:NGRIDIRON. The individual does not appear to have played a game in a qualifying league, nor served in a notable coaching position. Coverage of the article subject outside of this context appears to be routine sports coverage of minor or semi-proessional leagues as well as a Division III college team. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 21:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:06, 5 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:06, 5 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 22:36, 5 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 21:56, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:44, 19 October 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. Noting also that the nomination was withdrawn. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 22:58, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Kay Wilson Stallings

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

No coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV. What is there is a press release and a profile and a passing mention. No secondary coverage. scope_creep Talk 22:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 23:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 23:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
One is a routine annoucement of end of search and new boss, as its Sesame Street, its famous and it rubs off, the other is mentioned in passing. If she wasn't there, there would be no change to the article. Both of these reference are primary. There is no secondary sources on this BLP. And there is no coverage anywhere after doing a CSE, before search. scope_creep Talk 11:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with the abbreviation CSE. However I did another search and found this, and plenty of articles quoting the subject. NemesisAT ( talk) 12:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Google CSE search, another search format. That is another interview with same image, indicating it is a PR effort. scope_creep Talk 12:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete under criterion G5. — C.Fred ( talk) 20:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Krishnajeev TR

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

A tik tok celebrity who fails GNG Alphaonekannan ( talk) 21:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Alphaonekannan ( talk) 21:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete As per nom, the article fails GNG and contains excessive citations. Also the article not correctly structured, believe that it needs more contents. I also suggest the author to improve the article during this nomination if you can, otherwise I am voting the article to delete. Also somebody fix the AfD template on the article. Onmyway22 ( talk) 07:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
I moved it back to main space and added back the AfD tag. Liz Read! Talk! 22:26, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Since said user has been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry, I have removed their comment. — C.Fred ( talk) 18:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Based on that information, I think that the article can be deleted under WP:G5. On a related note, I have tagged the photograph in the infobox as a copyright violation on Commons. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 19:27, 23 October 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 A-ha discography#Videos/DVDs. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 23:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

A-ha – Live in South America

A-ha – Live in South America (  | 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. Refs are press-releases. scope_creep Talk 22:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 23:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 23:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Sorry, I thought it was the event. But there is still no references on the article. scope_creep Talk 00:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Yeah, agreed, unless someone digs up some sources, it's not going to meet any of our notability standards. I had just wondered if you accidentally cited the wrong one. Just trying to help out honestly, since it drives me nuts when articles are kept strictly due to nomination technicalities. Sergecross73 msg me 03:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
What sources do you need exactly ? What about the artice do you find questinable ? Give me spesifics . Here is another xource from the Rock min rio site. Click on 1991 to read about the festival and A-ha's record breaking audience https://rockinrio.com/rio/en/historia/ https://www.classicpopmag.com/2014/12/ha-reform-rock-rio/ Mortyman ( talk) 18:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
WP:RSMUSIC has a list of a lot of commonly acceptable sources. Generally speaking, you need coverage from publications that go into some detail about the subject itself. I'm not familiar with those sources so I'd have to give them a review. Sergecross73 msg me 19:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Mortyman, the Rock in Rio website isn't an independent source. Classic Pop is a reliable source, I agree... I'm very familiar with it in the UK. But the problem with both sources is that they only say that A-Ha played the festival... they don't say anything about this DVD itself. A-Ha setting attendance records at the concert in 1991 can be mentioned in their article, but that doesn't make the release of this DVD itself notable. We need sources that actually talk about the DVD, not about the concert. Richard3120 ( talk) 01:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 23:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Salimon Oluwatosin Sandra

Salimon Oluwatosin Sandra (  | 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 and WP:PROMO scope_creep Talk 22:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, withdrawn. — David Eppstein ( talk) 15:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Lethia Sherman Hankins

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

Can't understand why she is even notable. A civic leader and educator. She was black and ran for city council, not an unusual occurrence. scope_creep Talk 22:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

I came to wikipedia through a project to improve the representation of women on wikipedia by creating biographies. Women--especially women of color--are historically underrepresented in political office and so I chose to add this woman because Black women politicians are relatively rare. Hankins won a national award for racial justice work, is one of a handful of African American women to serve on Wilmington's city council, and was involved in numerous social and community causes. Musehist ( talk) 13:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC) Musehist reply

@ Musehist: Post a note to the Women in Red project at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red and they be able to help. It will be posted up the maintenance lists, but may be missed. They may find a deeper meaning that can validate the article. They will certainly do a pile on if they think it is notable, which is a good things. I hope that helps. scope_creep Talk 13:28, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Musehist: I will post a note, make sure it happens. scope_creep Talk 13:29, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply

My experience with wikipedia has been one of editors suggesting women's lives are not notable enough; improving representation is a great project, and i'm glad that the Women in Red project exists. I am not sure I would have done the course I did if I knew that if would lead to me having to spend my time trying to convince people who don't have contextual knowledge that black woman politicians in the south are notable by their mere existence. So I appreciate your suggestions, and hope that someone else joins the conversation, but I think the deeper meaning is already clear. Musehist ( talk) 13:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC) musehist reply

  • comment the article is reasonably sourced with an article about her in the Star-News, but the notability is truly borderline as the award she won does not seem to be a national award but rather awarded by the Palm Beach County division of YWCA as indicated here: [1]. So the claim to notability seems to be based mainly on being a city council and a county-level award. There is an obituary here in a local journal. -- hroest 20:01, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I found a 2016 Star-News article about donations of some of her items to the Cape Fear Museum, confirmed to the museum's website, which links to the museum's Flickr "This Month in Women's History" collection featuring the items, including her YWCA award, which includes the engraving "eliminating racism / empowering women". Beccaynr ( talk) 21:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC) Also: "Hankins was featured on our newscasts for a number of years, speaking about a variety of issues impacting the community. [...] Hankins was also presented with a WECT Cape Fear Hero award in 2009." ( WECT6, 2015), and a funeral service announcement/obit with the same byline from Star-News but different date and title than the source in the article. Beccaynr ( talk) 21:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC) Also, the William Madison Randall Library at the University of North Carolina Wilmington has Interview with Lethia S. Hankins (Oral History) in its collection. Beccaynr ( talk) 21:37, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: I've pinged someone with access to the Black Archives collection on ProQuest and hopefully they can help with more sources. Musehist can you provide links to the actual articles rather than the web pages? I cannot access many of the sources, but it appears we have sufficient coverage, over time in curated sources to write a complete and detailed article, between the Star News pieces (already cited and the one I've linked below) and the Wilmington Journal obit to meet GNG. There is also a booklet written about her, [2], but I cannot access it and have no way of judging its content. The Star News source in the article says, "she will receive the 2005 Dorothy Height Racial Justice Award from the YWCA USA, a national award once given to former President Bill Clinton". (And, Hannes Röst Palm Beach and several other places, like this one give a local award with the same name but Essence, a major magazine targeted to the black community confirms that it is indeed a national award, given as a part of the Women of Distinction Awards Gala. [3]) The League of Women Voters commissioned her portrait as one of five "influential women from Wilmington and North Carolina who made a difference for women" (and they looked at 100 years of candidates) to hang in the Bellamy Mansion. Clearly the sources indicate her contributions were not routine. SusunW ( talk) 21:48, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:BASIC and the sources that are in the article and emerging in this discussion that can be added to the article. I also found some reporting on her role with the 1898 Memorial Installation: WECT 2003, WHQR, 2008. Beccaynr ( talk) 21:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Those two references don't denote notability. scope_creep Talk 22:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Those two seem like more than trivial mentions, and help verify one of her community leadership roles; even though they are not substantial, I think they contribute to WP:BASIC notability. Based on what has emerged so far, she appears to have had an impact that multiple independent and reliable sources have found worthy of notice over time. Beccaynr ( talk) 22:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
No, Beccaynr. It is not acceptable to pull in all the stuff that is available and call it valid. There needs to be some kind bottom, and that is quality. A quality source that means something. Nothing that has been presented so far consistitutes notability. scope_creep Talk 11:25, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
It seems to be case there is only one obit, which I can't access now. It doesn't seem to be independent. scope_creep Talk 11:30, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Promise Uzoma Okoro

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

COI-laden article about a politician who does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Coverage is sourced to a website he runs, unreliable sources and trivial mentions. A WP:BEFORE search doesn't bring up enough sources to assert notability. Princess of Ara 22:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Princess of Ara 22:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Princess of Ara 22:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

I have gone through the subject, he is a Politician currently serving his people of Abia, I think the subject is qualified for a space on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebonyidaily ( talk • contribs) 01:35, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply

RESTOREThis is my two years on wikipedai, i have created about five articles and edited many, am based in Aba South East Nigerian and knows of the the politicians, the subject is a young politician who is the second youngest elected Deputy Chairman in history, such young people needs to be encouraged. i vote that other professional editors can edit the articles so i learn rather than deleting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikoro20 ( talk • contribs) 17:58, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply

I'm afraid that being a (Deputy) Local Government Chairman does not pass WP:NPOL, unfortunately. This leaves us with WP:GNG which this subject does not meet per the sources cited. If you can bring to this debate three reliable sources that provide significant coverage and are independent of the subject, I'll withdraw this nomination. Regards,
Princess of Ara 19:04, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
I have searched online, the subject before venturing into active politics was a media personality who was incharge of the Public relations unit of all bloggers in Nigeria. They are many sources about the subject ,i will drop many below, i also do sincerely appreciate you princess of Ara because you have helped in building and making me stronger in editing here. (1) [1](2) [2](3) [3](4)) [4]
Princess, i try to study subjects however am not yet that perfect, so from time to time, i need the teaching of experts like you to help e better, thanks my dear — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikoro20 ( talk • contribs) 20:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Thank you for obliging me with the sources @ Ikoro20, I'll present a source assessment in earnest.
Princess of Ara 21:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ "BREAKING!!! Buhari To Speak at Online Media Practitioners National Convention in Owerri". Arise Africa. Retrieved 2021-10-20.
  2. ^ "Nigerian blogger proposes to his girlfriend on her birthday(Photos) Nigerian blogger proposes to his girlfriend on her birthday(Photos)". Trezzy helm. Retrieved 2021-10-20.
  3. ^ "OMPAN to hold National Convention in Owerri 30 - 31st March 2018". Global News alerts. Retrieved 2021-10-20.
  4. ^ "OMPAN's Convention: Buhari To Deliver Keynote Address OMPAN's Convention: Buhari To Deliver Keynote Address". Big Pen Online. Retrieved 2021-10-20.
@ Ikoro20 Here's the assessment of sources I did. I assessed the 4 sources you supplied and 9 currently in the article.
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Arise Afrika No A press statement No No editorial overisight No Trivial mention ✘ No
Trezzy Helm Yes No A blog No routine coverage about his proposal ✘ No
Global News Alerts No A press release No A blog No Trivial mention ✘ No
Big Pen No A press release ? No Trivial mention ✘ No
PUO reports No A website run by him No blog Yes ✘ No
Dezmayoz Yes No A blog No A congratulatory note ✘ No
Igbere Yes No Blog No Trivial mention ✘ No
Daily Post No An interview Yes Generally reliable per WP:NGRS No An interview ✘ No
Igbere Blog Trivial mention ? Unknown
Igbo Watch Yes Yes ? Can't tell. Seems like a blog No Trivial mention ✘ No
Leadership Yes Yes Generally reliable per WP:NGRS No Source does not even mention the subject ✘ No
PUO Reports No A website run by him No A blog No A post he wrote about an upcoming event ✘ No
Abia Pulse Yes ? Can't tell. Seems like a blog No A single mention ✘ 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}}.
Thank yo so much for your assessment Princess of ara, like i stated above am not perfect, do not know the subject nor have i met him in person, it was on the process of creating an article for the Speaker of the Abia State House of Assembly that i picked interest in the subject,i feel you can use your expertise to help me grow on this space, i really wants to be more grounded on editorial skills, on the subject, i feel you can help build it, you are doig great work here and i sincerely do appreciate you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikoro20 ( talk • contribs) 01:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
having gone through the efforts of @ikoro20, mine opinion is that the article be allowed on wiki space but @princess of ara should kindly do help it grow, the creator appears passionate about his or her work which is what we encourage here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebonyidaily ( talk • contribs) 01:30, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No support for deletion. ( non-admin closure) 4meter4 ( talk) 15:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply

A Celebration of Horses: The American Saddlebred

A Celebration of Horses: The American Saddlebred (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None of the sources provided in the article actually talk about the TV series or episode (whatever this article is - it isn't clear) and instead provide proof that the person cited existed in the world. There is one image in the article that talks about the TV series, a horse magazine which might be also involved in the production of this. Finally, I couldn't find any sources that talk about it online, which makes sense since it is from the early 90s, but I'm unsure how much reviews a PBS show about horses actually got. TL/DR this basically fails GNG. Gonnym ( talk) 21:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Gonnym ( talk) 21:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: probably needs some WP:HEY work done, but this is one of those situations where we are dealing with the pre-google or early google era. There is also significance in that William Shatner was the celebrity host, he owned a Saddlebred farm and is quite an accomplished rider. Also the program won a national award which was (1) a first of its kind, and was (2) sponsored by what is now the United States Equestrian Federation, and received awards, which is notable. It also aired nationally long after its original debut as a special on PBS affiliates, but digging up old newspaper TV schedules is probably also a challenge. Montanabw (talk) 02:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC). reply
  • Comment. As the nom mentions, it's unclear whether this was a series or one episode of a series; if it was just one episode, it would be better to have an article about the series instead. In either case, this show apparently isn't even listed in IMDb. Five of the nine sources cited don't even mention this show, those being "Patricia Nichols Dies" (The Saddlehorse Report), "Saddlebred Legend Lynn Weatherman Dies" (Equus), "KNO Productions", "CH Sky Watch Bio" (Kentucky Horse Park), and "A Celebration of History ..." (The Saddlehorse Report). The Wills Ranch is a page which had this show for sale on VHS and DVD, which is relevant but not an independent source per WP:VENDOR (the Wills Ranch was owned by the show's producer Betty Wills). That leaves only an article from The American Saddlebred whose first page is used as an image in this article, a newspaper article not available without a newspapers.com account, and an article from "Horse Show Magazine" not available online. It's possible that the sources I can't access make a clear case for notability, and I don't want to judge the subject non-notable without being able to view the offline sources, but so far I'm not enthusiastic. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I just added this to the William Shatner filmography. Surely most everything he's touched is notable? Every single individual Star Trek episode ever produced is notable as a standalone article, as far as I know. – wbm1058 ( talk) 18:42, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
    I'm very surprised to see an WP:INHERITED argument from an admin. Not every TV show is notable, not every show that a "famous" person was in is notable and not every Star Trek episode ever produced is automatically notable. See WP:TVSHOW on notability guidelines on TV, especially Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope), or on a cable television channel with a broad regional or national audience. It is far less likely to be notable if it airs in only one local media market. - this was aired regional channels, so the lowest possible exposure. The guideline continues with: In either case, however, the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone. For instance, a purely local talk radio program might be notable enough for inclusion if it played a solidly sourceable role in exposing a major political scandal, and a national television program might not be notable if it was cancelled too quickly to have garnered any media coverage. - where are the reliable sources for this TV series? Gonnym ( talk) 19:08, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
    Nature (TV program) is produced by WNET New York, but that doesn't mean it's only broadcast in the New York area. Nova (American TV program) is produced by WGBH-TV Boston, which also produces programming that airs nationally. Just because Memphis doesn't unofficially serve as one of three flagship stations of PBS doesn't mean it doesn't occasionally produce things that air beyond the Memphis region. Presumably at least all the Kentucky-based PBS channels carried this. I suppose this can be verified by researching historical TV listings. – wbm1058 ( talk) 19:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
    It might have aired even all over the US (which seems unlikely), but that still doesn't change the fact that unless RS talk about it (and not in a TV guide kind of way of "A Celebration of Horses: The American Saddlebred 6PM Monday") then the show is not notable. The fact that it was meant to be a series and ended up with one episode and that the only one talking about is the horse organization says a lot. Gonnym ( talk) 19:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
    I know this is OR on my part, but I know it was aired all over the US, because I saw it on my PBS affiliate during pledge week several years ago. While the celebration of horses series probably is worthy of a standalone article, this one got the publicity because it had Shatner. Montanabw (talk) 17:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, although I recognize that this is a borderline case and the page could do with some improvement. I've looked at the criteria at WP:NF and the draft Wikipedia:Notability (television), and I take particular note of something that was mentioned just above by the nom: that notability is likely if "it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope)". In fact, according to the page, it had "four releases nationally on 56 PBS affiliates". That is not just regional exposure; for PBS, 56 affiliate markets are a lot (especially given that there are 50 states in the US). PBS is a major broadcast network, and this was widespread national broadcasting. Also, the show won an award, albeit from a specialty organization. As far as I can tell, that organization was independent of the show production, and so this establishes some independent recognition of the show's significance. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Just a note: I watched this show on YouTube and found that William Shatner was not the host of this show. He is, however, the person most prominently featured in it and there is plenty of interview footage of him in the show. I removed the references to Shatner being the host from the article. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I touched that up a bit, to clarify that he was the celebrity guest, as opposed to host. It was kind of an odd structure, as the narrator isn’t exactly the host, and Shatner was prominently featured, but whatever. Also, a must raise a concern that certain citations required for variability were being removed by the person who nominated this article, and so I am posting a link to my last revision which shows all citations, and thus if we are looking at that issue, this is an easy place to compare other versions. Montanabw (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Tryptofish. Mini apolis 02:04, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 23:03, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Volcano Ōta

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

Not notable. References are passing mentions and cast lists. No secondary coverage for a BLP. scope_creep Talk 21:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Jumpytoo Talk 01:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 ( ICE T • ICE CUBE) 15:45, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Martina Castro

Martina Castro (  | 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:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Refs are own blogs, self-generated profiles and a Forbes contributor ref. Very poor. No secondary coverage. scope_creep Talk 19:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 20:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 20:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

There are four sources here that are not self-generated, third party reports on the subject. The Forbes piece is not self-generated at all. The subject is extremely significant in the development of US broadcast media, and has the citations to show for it. But the article could be augmented so edits are welcome.-- Angshah ( talk) 20:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

The Forbes link is Non-RS. It is a contributor. The referencing is very poor. scope_creep Talk 22:17, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Thanks for clarifying! This helps a lot! And also, the new sources look quite good!-- Angshah ( talk) 13:43, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep This is only the second time I have commented on an article for deletion. However, I have added sources providing evidence of coverage of her work (e.g., NBC News, The Verge). With the additions, I feel it is clearer that she meets WP:GNG. DaffodilOcean ( talk) 14:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment I am working to revise the article and add sources, and it looks like there is some support for WP:CREATIVE#3 as well, due to her co-creation of a collective body of work and sources including this 2020 Vulture article focused a collective body of work that includes her role as the founder of Adonde Media, executive producer of the Las Raras podcast, as well as her work as the host and producer of the Duolingo Spanish Podcast. There is also, as noted above, the 2017 NBC News article focused on her work on the Duolingo Spanish Podcast, and the 2020 Verge article focused on it. I also found a 2017 Language Magazine review of the Duolingo Spanish Podcast. The article also has a 2014 PRI report of a work where she was a sound designer. I am still working my way through sources, including Spanish-language sources. Beccaynr ( talk) 22:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr ( talk) 01:18, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr ( talk) 01:18, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr ( talk) 01:18, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment @ Beccaynr: Excellent work... as usual. scope_creep Talk 14:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply
    Thank you, scope_creep. I plan to further review the Spanish-language sources, including about her role with Radio Ambulante, because I think there is more, even if not particularly substantial, support for the "collective body of work" aspect of WP:CREATIVE notability based on that work, and there appears to be support for WP:BASIC related to her role as CEO of Adonde Media due to the data collection activities and her role in the podcast industry that are now more highlighted, or could be more emphasized. Overall, there now appears to be more support for WP:BASIC, and I think the Spanish-language sources that were quite deep in search results help solidify notability for this subject. Beccaynr ( talk) 14:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Yes, I think it is well passed that. Nomination Withdrawn. Article has undergone significant redevelopment and meets the heymann standard. scope_creep Talk 15:02, 22 October 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 Azerbaijanis. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:07, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Azerbaijani population

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

WP:CONTENTFORK of the Azerbaijanis article, but badly written / referenced. Apparently a translation from Azeri Wikipedia that does not pass even most basic English standards - impossible to understand even what the lede is trying to say. --Armatura ( talk) 19:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

After opening this AfD, the creator moved part of the text to create yet another content fork at Azerbaijani population by country - this is potentially an attempt of saving otherwise deletable material. --Armatura ( talk) 21:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --Armatura ( talk) 19:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. --Armatura ( talk) 19:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 20:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Delete comments, apart from being in the majority, appear to reflect better the quality of the sources. Black Kite (talk) 23:40, 30 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Artiswitch

Artiswitch (  | 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. Fails WP:NFILM. scope_creep Talk 01:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Link20XX ( talk) 01:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 01:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 02:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC) reply

None of these are a review, all of them very low quality. They are very very poor. Not of them is a review. scope_creep Talk 11:05, 18 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom for failing WP:NFILM. The lowest bar in this guideline is that it," ... has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." No indication this is the case and it certainly doesn't meet any other criteria at WP:FILM. Ifnord ( talk) 14:38, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
    • This isn't actually a film but a web series, so I don't think WP:NFILM applies. Also, sources don't have to be reviews to be considered secondary coverage. The Crunchyroll article is covering the series' announcement, thus making it a secondary source based on the definition of such. The other articles are also covering the series. Link20XX ( talk) 17:23, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
It does apply. scope_creep Talk 17:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
As this is web content, WP:NWEB can also be used as notability criteria (this show probably doesn't meet it, but it's an option if more sources are found). Jumpytoo Talk 19:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
I still don't see why NFILM applies. I see the argument for NWEB but that is irrelevant because it clearly passes WP:GNG with the sources provided above. Articles don't have to be reviews to be significant coverage in reliable sources. Crunchyroll, Natalie, Mantan Web and Amimate Times do have some content from primary sources, however they aren't just a copy-paste of the original announcement and add some background and other information on the series. I have no idea why Mantan web gives you a 404 error (works fine for me). An article sourcing partially to a press release does not make it a primary source. As for Animate Times, the article is not clearly labeled as a press release so I have no reason to believe it is such. But it's irrelevant anyway, the other sources are just fine. Link20XX ( talk) 09:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge I feel an ATD is possible here by either making an article on AsobiSystem then merging there, or merging to Harajuku#In popular culture if notability of AsobiSystem cannot be established. Jumpytoo Talk 19:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Fails GNG as the coverage is not in-depth enough or independent enough to pass WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:NFILM which is our guideline for this kind of content (it is the closest guideline for covering a streaming web series). WP:NWEB is designed to cover other kinds of web content (blogs, Internet forums, newsgroups, online magazines, other media, podcasts, webcomics, and web portals), and is meant to cover other kinds of content on the internet not covered elsewhere, not to subvert a more pertinent SNG. 4meter4 ( talk) 16:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply
    • At least from my experience, an article that covers just the series and nothing else that is also from a website with no connection to the original source qualifies as secondary and independent. Like I stated above, these are not copy-pastes of press releases. Link20XX ( talk) 05:01, 28 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: CG World magazine discusses the series' creation here. lullabying ( talk) 23:59, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply
A magazine that discusses the mechanics of computer graphics, in this particular instance describing how the characters were drawn layer by layer. Hardly worth mentioning. scope_creep Talk 18:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) 🌀 Locomotive207- talk 🌀 01:07, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Craig Taylor (writer)

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

WP:BLP of a journalist and playwright, not reliably sourced as passing our inclusion criteria for journalists or playwrights. The only notability claim on offer here is that he exists, and the only "references" are an Amazon listing for one of his books and a directory of his own writing on the self-published website of a magazine he's written for -- but the notability test for a writer is not passed by citing his work to itself as technical verification that it exists, it's passed by citing his work to external sources verifying that it got independent attention (notable literary awards, critical analysis, etc.) to establish its significance. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much, much better sources than this. Bearcat ( talk) 15:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 15:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 15:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 15:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 15:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 18:46, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No support for deletion and article has been improved through editing. ( non-admin closure) 4meter4 ( talk) 16:16, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Golden Horseshoe Saloon

Golden Horseshoe Saloon (  | 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 a well organized 15-year-old article about a restaurant at Disneyland. It is almost completely unsourced. The only coverage I can find about it are Disney-associated blogs and websites. Applicable policies would be WP:CORP and WP:NOTTRAVEL. I thought of merging it into Frontierland but that article simply lists attractions without describing them. So, not knowing where else this can fit, I am proposing it for deletion. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 14:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 14:48, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Amusement parks-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 14:48, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 14:48, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Why are disney blogs not good references? I mean they go to Disney everyday. Kaleeb18 ( talk) 00:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Kaleeb18, Disney affiliated sources may be OK for some minor uncontroversial details about a notable topic, but they are worthless for establishing notability. That requires references to reliable sources that are completely independent of the topic, so that rules out all Disney-affiliated sources, which exist to drive business to Disney ventures. Where are the independent reliable sources that devote significant coverage to the Golden Horseshoe Saloon? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Cullen328: oh ok thanks. So the only thing that really can be referenced about this article is a book cause all the websites about it are disney blogs from what I can see Kaleeb18 ( talk) 11:35, 15 October 2021 (UTC) reply

We should not delete it. I have found an article on LA Times and New York Times that talks about the restaurant. I have also found an Anehiem newspaper talking about it. i have added all three of those articles as references to the restaurant article in hopes of saving it from deletion. Kaleeb18 ( talk) 19:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC) reply

The NYT citation is an obituary about a person, not about the topic of this article. The LA Times one is OK, as is OCregister. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 04:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC) reply

yes your right @ Anachronist: but in that article its mentions a lot of stuff about the show.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 18:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Nice find @ Cullen328: how did you find that book tho so I can search for books too? Kaleeb18 ( talk) 23:30, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Kaleeb18, I used the "books" search tool at the top of this page, but you can just go to Google Books anytime to search for coverage in books. You can sometimes read a few pages, but some publishers do not allow that. Sometimes magazine articles turn up too. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:40, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
thank you @ Cullen328: I didn't even know there was a google books. Kaleeb18 ( talk) 00:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Kaleeb18, I am happy to introduce you to a useful search option for Wikipedia editors. Ask me questions any time. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) ProClasher97 ~ Have A Question? 14:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Bold Rock Hard Cider

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

Not notable, and does not meet NCORP guidelines. No secondary sources at all, and a quick search only brings up the company’s website and various social media profiles and product lists. ProClasher97 ~ Have A Question? 18:36, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ProClasher97 ~ Have A Question? 18:36, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ProClasher97 ~ Have A Question? 18:36, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - The Forbes article is actually not acceptable since its by a contributing writer, however, i have found and added more in-depth sources, such as [8] and [9]. Nominator needs to do better research! There are a lot more news on this company. Lesliechin1 ( talk) 02:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: You two do make some very valid points. As someone who is still relatively new to AfD, it’s not fair for me to rush decisions based solely on the content of an article. Knowing what I do now, I honestly don’t know why I nominated this for deletion (although I’m sure the promo-edits by sockpuppets had some influence on that decision). Looking at the article now, it’s clear that this subject is notable enough, so I’m going to close this so that no other editors have to waste their time on this. ProClasher97 ~ Have A Question? 14:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 10:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Authena AG

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

This company has some mentions online, but none of them are of the quality that would be considered significant coverage in a third-party source. They get trivial mentions in start-up rankings ( [10], [11]) and some promo coverage ( [12]). I haven't seen any coverage worthy of WP:GNG/ WP:NCORP. Modussiccandi ( talk) 18:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi ( talk) 18:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi ( talk) 18:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi ( talk) 18:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
There's reliability and depth of coverage, which needs to be appropriately high to count toward notability. I can't speak to the reliability of the Italian-language source (perhaps other participants can?) but I would say that it constitutes significant coverage. For the German-language source, the opposite is the case: it's certainly reliable but I can't speak to the depth of coverage because it's behind a paywall. Modussiccandi ( talk) 15:48, 26 October 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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Wang Sichao

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

The previous deletion discussion from 2005 was closed as No Consensus, although the rationales for 'keep' were thin. WP:BEFORE reveals no significant coverage of the subject in WP:RS. There are only three sources in the article; one does not mention the subject, and another is (at best) of marginal reliability. The lack of any significant coverage in reliable secondary sources renders the subject non-notable per WP:N (specifically WP:SIGCOV). JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 16:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 17:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 17:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Jumpytoo Talk 23:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Comment From WP:BASIC: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable [and] intellectually independent of each other At least three of the four sources mentioned immediately above by Jumpytoo are not independent, reliable secondary sources that are intellectually independent of each other, and thus they do not, as claimed, meet WP:BASIC. Specifically: China News Service is state-owned and "involved in targeted disinformation and propaganda campaigns" (sourced on the enWiki page); "The Paper" is run by the Shanghai United Media Group, which is state-owned and operates as a "foreign mission" of the Chinese government (sourced on the enWiki page); the Qianjiang Evening News, is state-owned. The cas.cn source could not be evaluated by me, but it seems a reasonable assumption that any media outlet with the .cn top-level domain is, by definition, state-owned. Even if sources owned and operated by the Chinese government could be considered reliable for anything, there is no basis for considering them to be intellectually independent. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 00:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply
There are a few issues with your argument:
1. From this any media outlet with the .cn top-level domain is, by definition, state-owned, you seem to believe all Chinese media are not reliable. The consensus at WP:RSN and WP:RSP has consistently said that most Chinese outlets are reliable when they are not discussing a topic the CCP considers controversial (see WP:XINHUA, China Daily, Sixth Tone (which I consider the English equivalent of The Paper, owned by same part of government)), and this person is not considered controversial. I would also like to note the context omitted in your quote of China News Service, specially you omitted According to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, CNS was involved in targeted disinformation and propaganda campaigns, which a RfC on WP:RSN just closed noting that Editors consider ASPI to be a biased or opinionated source that is reliable in its area of expertise but recommend care as it is a think tank associated with the defence industry in Australia, the Australian Government and the US State Department (boldings are mine). And regardless, the CNS source is from 2016, which predates the issues noted by the think tank (which happened in 2019). If we use your idea that all Chinese media is unreliable, this would impose a standard of requiring international notability for any article relating to China, which is a ridiculous standard not applied anywhere else and a clear example or WP:SYSTEMICBIAS.
2.You are misunderstanding what intellectually independent means. To quote the guideline, Intellectual independence" requires not only that the content of sources be non-identical, but also that the entirety of content in a published work not be derived from (or based in) another work (partial derivations are acceptable). For example, a speech by a politician about a particular person contributes toward establishing the notability of that person, but multiple reproductions of the transcript of that speech by different news outlets do not.. This would for example cover the obituaries I gave (which is why I provided 4 sources, not WP:THREE, as the first 2 sources only count as 1 for notability), but not the profiles as reading the articles even through Google Translate will show they were written independently of each other and the profiles both contain content that are not in the other article. An analogy would be saying two articles written 3 years apart by different authors that both contain facts not discussed in the other don't have intellectual independence because they were both posted in the NY Times. Jumpytoo Talk 02:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Why do you suppose this subject is not controversial? It is a bit weird to argue that UFO beliefs (which seem to be the primary interest of the sources you propose) are uncontroversial. On the basis of WP:SENSATION, we would probably reject the WP:FRINGEBLP as the sources don't seem (for whatever reason) to be bothered by the fact that his arguments are woolly to the extreme. jps ( talk) 11:54, 28 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Could of used better wording there, was referring to the "political sensitiveness" of the topic when considering if Chinese state media would be unreliable for reporting, and in terms of that he is not controversial. I can see evaluating SENSATION and FRINGEBLP based of his public belief of aliens, however the China News Service and China Science Daily sources have most of their coverage on non-fringey topics (specifically, CNS only talks about his meteorite detection & collision research, and the CSD source has the first 2/3rds talk about his meteorite research, and determining human-related causes for UFOs) such that an article can still be written based off non-fringe content. Jumpytoo Talk 19:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC) reply
I actually think that some of the meteorite detection and collision research may be WP:FRINGE as well, but it is hard for me to judge because of my inability to interact with the sources. Do you think it possible to provide a rewrite of the stub to illustrate what you think could happen here if the article were kept? jps ( talk) 12:00, 29 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources provided by Jumpytoo ( talk · contribs).

    There is significant biographical coverage of the subject from a Google Translate of the 2016 China News Service article:

    Wang Sichao, originally from Guangzhou, Guangdong, was born in Rongxian County, Guangxi. He studied in Zhongshan University and Primary School, South China Normal University in his childhood. He was admitted to the Physics Department of Peking University in 1957, and was assigned to Zijinshan, Chinese Academy of Sciences in 1963. Worked in the Planetary Research Laboratory of the Observatory, and successively served as research intern, assistant researcher, associate researcher, researcher, etc. Retired honorably in 1999.

    Researcher Wang Sichao is one of the pioneers of meteorological research in China. He and Academician Ouyang Ziyuan have conducted in-depth and systematic studies on the meteorite rain that occurred in Jilin and achieved important results. He traveled long distances to the Qinling Mountains to inspect the Ningqiang meteorite crash site, collect meteorite samples, and then conduct in-depth research to find out the composition of this rare carbonaceous chondrite. He also enthusiastically participated in the study of Wuxi Climbing Ice.

    There is significant biographical coverage of the subject from a Google Translate of the 2013 China Science Daily article:

    Wang Sichao is one of the earliest meteorite researchers in China's astronomical world. In 1963, he graduated from Peking University with a major in astrophysics and then joined the Purple Mountain Observatory of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. He has been "unconventional" in meteorite research for many years. At that time, Wang Sichao, who was still a little experienced, firmly believed that the origin of the solar system should be studied from the original sample of the solar system-meteorite experimental analysis. Get started.

    For this reason, he has received much criticism. In order to prove his theory, Wang Sichao often travels alone to look for valuable meteorites in mountainous areas. Fortunately, the carbonaceous chondrite collected by him, Shaanxi Ningqiang meteorite, was identified and found to contain a wealth of important information about the birth of the solar system, and found the factual basis for the impact of supernovae on the formation of the solar system.

    From WP:XINHUA:

    Xinhua News Agency is the official state-run press agency of the People's Republic of China. There is consensus that Xinhua is generally reliable for factual reporting except in areas where the government of China may have a reason to use it for propaganda or disinformation. Xinhua is also generally reliable for the views and positions of the Chinese government and its officials. For subjects where the Chinese government may be a stakeholder, the consensus is almost unanimous that Xinhua cannot be trusted to cover them accurately and dispassionately; some editors favour outright deprecation because of its lack of editorial independence. There is no consensus for applying any one single label to the whole of the agency. Caution should be exercised in using this source, extremely so in case of extraordinary claims on controversial subjects or biographies of living people. When in doubt, try to find better sources instead; use inline attribution if you must use Xinhua.

    I will apply the Xinhua source analysis standard to the Chinese government-owned or affiliated sources listed here. Regarding the coverage of Wang Sichao, I do not see "a reason to use it for propaganda or disinformation". The sources cover Wang Sichao in the context of his work as an astronomer. I consider them reliable. I strongly agree with Jumpytoo's statement: "If we use your idea that all Chinese media is unreliable, this would impose a standard of requiring international notability for any article relating to China, which is a ridiculous standard not applied anywhere else and a clear example or WP:SYSTEMICBIAS."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Wang Sichao ( Chinese: 王思潮) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 08:06, 29 October 2021 (UTC) reply

I don't think these sources help us write a biography. What is "unconventional" about his studies? Incidentally, he doesn't really have many publications or sources that I can find which identify his studies beyond "he went here, he said this" which is a WP:REDFLAG for me when trying to properly contextualize claims. I don't know how to write this biography and the sources proposed do little to inspire confidence. What I would love to see would be a person arguing for keep rewrite the biography to conform to our standards. jps ( talk) 12:00, 29 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:TNT and WP:A7. While I agree with Cunard and Jumpytoo that the subject passes WP:BASIC per the Chinese language sources, currently there is no strong claim to notability written in the prose of the article itself. As such, it could be speedy deleted unless someone actually writes about why this particular researcher is important and what his actual work/research entailed. At the moment the article mainly focuses on a spurious critique of Stephen Hawking's speculations on man's potential encounter with extraterrestrials. This seems trivial rather than encyclopedic. 4meter4 ( talk) 19:16, 29 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Bravo Cunard. I scratched my delete vote above. Keep per WP:HEY. Subject passes WP:BASIC. 4meter4 ( talk) 12:35, 31 October 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. There's consensus that the GNG is met. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 17:13, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Tyler Rogers (gridiron football)

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

Not notable per WP:NGRIDIRON having not played in a professional league. See discussion at Talk:Tyler_Rogers#Requested_move_12_October_2021 SilkTork ( talk) 16:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Player doesn't meet NGRIDIRON but he does meet GNG per the points made below so this is a changed vote from delete to keep. I assume his college football career has no bearing for notability purposes unless he meets GNG? This player doesn't appear to meet GNG. Happy to change my vote if suitable sources can be presented. No Great Shaker ( talk) 19:16, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
No Great Shaker, no, one's college football career can indeed be what establishes an individual's notability. Jweiss11 ( talk) 01:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Thank you, Jweiss11. Having read the points made below, I think we can go with GNG on this one so I've altered my vote. No Great Shaker ( talk) 12:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Rockchalk717: WP:NGRIDIRON is an inclusive standard, not an exclusive one. College football players who have never played professional football are notable if they pass WP:GNG. As outlined below, Rogers hits that mark. Cbl62 ( talk) 15:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep subject is notable based on extensive coverage in multiple, independent sources. It's also safe to assume that any starting quarterback for a NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision team will pass GNG. You will find the sources if you look for them. Jweiss11 ( talk) 01:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
    It's also safe to assume that any starting quarterback for a NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision team will pass GNG. I have doubts as to whether that's true, and even if it were true that it would be desirable to have that kind of coverage. For most of them, we could never write more than the kind of article you see here--a stub covering no more than eight years of their life (college and high school career), with nothing to say about what happened next. That would be better covered in a season article. Mackensen (talk) 01:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Mackensen, yes, it's true, certainly for someone who started at QB for at least a full season like Rogers. Even if the notable pursuits of an individual are confined to a few years, they can still be notable. This article and it analogs could be expanded into a well-developed articles. Jweiss11 ( talk) 02:04, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
To further demonstrate notability, and out of thousands and thousands who have played football at New Mexico State, he ranks second (behind Chase Holbrook) all time in passing yards, total offense, and touchdowns. This is not a run of the mill player. Cbl62 ( talk) 15:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 08:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. per WP:CSD#A9. I have blocked the SPA. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 19:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

҈ Beginning

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

Seemingly non-notable article about an album, the article about the musician is tagged for A7. Creator seems to be a promotion-only account. Giraffer ( talk· contribs) 16:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Giraffer ( talk· contribs) 16:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Giraffer ( talk· contribs) 16:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 16:41, 19 October 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 14:26, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

2015 SIU Edwardsville Cougars men's soccer team

2015 SIU Edwardsville Cougars men's soccer team (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails to meet WP:GNG through a lack of significant coverage. Cited sources are WP:ROUTINE and a large number of citations and prose does not change that fact. Season also fails WP:NSEASONS as the team did not make the NCAA Tournament. Recent prior consensus for such articles exists here. Jay eyem ( talk) 16:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jay eyem ( talk) 16:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 14:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Arihant Group of Institutes

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

Could also be WP:G11 but regardless cannot find independent sources to meet WP:NCORP. Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 14:38, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 14:38, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 14:38, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 13:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete There's zero that's notable about this. Even if it does award degrees. I can't even find the usual trivial name drops that most universities have in school directories. In the meantime, articles should be more then trivial basic facts that people can easily find on the websites of the universities. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 04:53, 23 October 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 14:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Knowles Crossroads, Delaware

Knowles 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)

Topo shows a road intersection just as empty as the nearby Gum Crossroads and McDonalds Crossroads, as does the satellite image. A few newspapers.com hits like [24] [25] [26] use it as a reference point. An obituary says someone who near the crossroads died, but I do not see notability. Reywas92 Talk 13:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92 Talk 13:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Reywas92 Talk 13:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Seems to have been a crossroads and reference point. No indication of notability or being an actual community. I was able to find a bit in the archives, but nothing substantial. ~ EDDY ( talk/ contribs)~ 00:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 13:48, 19 October 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 14:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Kona Shuttle

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

WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I cannot find a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails NCORP HighKing ++ 10:23, 5 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. HighKing ++ 10:23, 5 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. HighKing ++ 10:25, 5 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. HighKing ++ 10:25, 5 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 13:47, 19 October 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. Black Kite (talk) 23:41, 30 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Serbian Brazilian

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

Obscure ethnicity. Not every intersection in the world is notable, and this is trivial. Geschichte ( talk) 11:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisting to encourage consideration of the "merge" option. Note that if content is merged, the article will not be deleted but replaced with a redirect over the page history to preserve proper attribution.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 12:53, 19 October 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. Black Kite (talk) 23:42, 30 October 2021 (UTC) reply

2015 Würenlingen shooting

2015 Würenlingen shooting (  | 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 crime. The only sources are routine coverage. Asmodea Oaktree ( talk) 12:01, 4 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Asmodea Oaktree ( talk) 12:01, 4 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Asmodea Oaktree ( talk) 12:01, 4 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:49, 4 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 16:57, 11 October 2021 (UTC) reply
        • If it was an act of terror or received international coverage, it might be notable. If it resulted in new legislation in Germany, created a political scandal or involved a celebrity or other well-known figure, it might be notable. I agree with Lockley's suggestion to Merge it into the Würenlingen article. Rogermx ( talk) 02:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
          And how many of the countless articles we have on murders do you think fall into most of those categories? Very few. As to international coverage, there's a link to a BBC article on the page. Is the BBC Swiss (not German, incidentally)? So yes, that's international coverage. Most British newspapers covered it as well. A quick Google search also shows coverage from Ireland, Australia, India, the USA, Taiwan... And that's just a selection of English-language sources. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 07:27, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply
          • hello @ Necrothesp: -- in good faith & good humor let me follow up on that phrase "claim of notability." I do so partly for my own benefit so I have it right. That phrase occurs in wikipedia once at WP:NOT, versions of it three times here at an older inoperative version, with about 2350 more verbatim occurrences in wikipedia to choose from. I looked at the first four pages of results, and the phrase is used how I'd expected, in guidelines and discussions. The slightly different phrase "claim to notability" comes back with another 1700 results to choose from but you see the point. No, expressing a claim to notability isn't formalized or mandatory. I would be against that, as you seem to be. But it's a useful concept here in the AfD queue, that language comes from the guidelines, and it's natural that an editor would talk about it. Best -- Lockley ( talk) 19:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
            • @ Necrothesp It is a common phrase at AFD because of WP:A7 which does require that we provide some sort of indication of importance within an article. Without one, an article can be speedy deleted even if it passes GNG. Best. 4meter4 ( talk) 21:30, 29 October 2021 (UTC) reply
              • Actually, it isn't especially common because most editors with any experience realise that it stems from a far too literal reading of notability criteria. An indication of importance doesn't necessarily mean explicitly stating importance. It simply means using common sense to determine whether something is important. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 23:08, 29 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into Würenlingen, where this crime is already mentioned. One study on data from 2009 to 2015 showed the U.S. ranked as #11 in terms of fatalities from mass shootings per capita. Ten European countries had worse statistics. Switzerland came in at #7. That may be a surprisingly and counterintuitive result from a politically charged analysis -- but the point is, that shows European mass shootings are not rare enough to be automatically notable in wikipedia. Notice that since 1985 there are been two mass shootings in this Swiss town of 5000 people. -- Lockley ( talk) 17:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 12:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete and ideally migrate any relevant additions (if any) to the Würenlingen page. As Lockley notes, Switzerland has high gun ownership and gun violence, so the existing mention is more than enough - unless if, in future, it changes something, e.g. gun legislation. Iskandar323 ( talk) 17:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. The requests to supply sources went unfulfilled. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:39, 28 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Geoffrey John Davies

Geoffrey John Davies (  | 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 business man and violinist who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them thus a This is s GNG fail. Furthermore a before search turns up nothing concrete. They are a business person and fail to satisfy WP:ANYBIO. Needless to say WP:SIGCOV isn’t met Celestina007 ( talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 12:46, 19 October 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. Current consensus is to delete. If that changes in the future, this can be revisited. As I'm nearly positive that someone will ask me to restore the article at some point, I'm going to preemptively restore it to Draft:Sanjay Awasthy. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Sanjay Awasthy

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

Local politician. Doesn't meet WP:NPOLITICIAN or WP:GNG - MPGuy2824 ( talk) 08:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. - MPGuy2824 ( talk) 08:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - MPGuy2824 ( talk) 08:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I'd completely missed this. Originally referenced an Indian cricketer with only a single first-class appearance - whose article would probably have been deleted anyway in current circumstances - then was changed to refer to a politician who none of us will have heard of. I still don't know how the notability criteria has changed. Bobo . 08:36, 29 September 2021 (UTC) reply
This should explain the switch. - MPGuy2824 ( talk) 08:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment From a cricketing point of view I'd normally say redirect to List of Himachal Pradesh cricketers as he played a single game for a single FC team and there's not enough fo a GNG pass but a WP:ATD, however I'm not particularly knowledgable on politics guidelines and Indian politics. If his political career is in no way notable then I'd say redirect to the cricket list, but if he has some notability in politics then perhaps a politics redirect would be better. Rugbyfan22 ( talk) 09:13, 30 September 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Rugbyfan22 ( talk) 13:04, 30 September 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Rugbyfan22 ( talk) 13:04, 30 September 2021 (UTC) reply
Sorry about that, I wasn't trying to slip something under the radar. But now that i check WP:CRIN, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Official cricket#Men's Competitions with First-class/List A/T20 status that we don't deem notable, his cricket career is not automatically notable. - MPGuy2824 ( talk) 05:03, 2 October 2021 (UTC) reply
No worries MPGuy2824, I must apologise, I mistook your username for another user from earlier in the year who nominated quite a few cricket articles without checking the cricket notability guidelines. StickyWicket ( talk) 16:15, 4 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:52, 6 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 12:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
According to this ECI notice, counting will be on 2nd November. So, we should have the results, by evening tomorrow (IST). - MPGuy2824 ( talk) 04:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC) reply
Result page. Sanjay is leading. Venkat TL ( talk) 05:23, 2 November 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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Chocolatey

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

The 2016 AfD consensus was to merge this article to NuGet. This was done but in the past week, an IP editor has deleted the merged text from the target [27] and reverted the redirect on this article. The product has continued to be developed (to version 0.11.2, according to the revived article), so rather than revert the IP actions, a new AfD may be appropriate, though I am not seeing the subsequent substantial coverage that would be needed to overturn the previous decision. AllyD ( talk) 13:54, 4 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 13:54, 4 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Seems good enough for me. – K4rolB ( talk) 20:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 16:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Previous discussions: 2016-04 (closed as merge to NuGet)
Logs: 2015-05 ✗ G6 ← 2009-01 ✗ G2
-- Cewbot ( talk) 00:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Regarding the sources listed above, the two PCWorld items were considered in the previous AfD, the ZDnet item references a paragraph in a Microsoft blog [28] which summarises this and other package managers. Are that and the brief LinuxJournal piece from 2017 sufficient to overturn the previous consensus and establish specific notability? AllyD ( talk) 06:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 12:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to NuGet per WP:ATD and its information can be summarized in the main article. Maybe tagging the redirect with {{ r with possibilities}} is possible. – The Grid ( talk) 13:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Chocolatey is a package manager for installing executable binaries, like Homebrew, while NuGet is a dependency manager for developer libraries, like RubyGems. The version of Chocolatey that was based directly on NuGet was deprecated and fact that it uses nuspec files is simply an implementation detail. The links in both AFDs and these:
establish notability. Galagora ( talk) 21:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: The suggestions to merge this with Nuget show a fundamental misunderstanding on what Chocolatey is. Chocolatey is the package manager for Windows and while it is based on Nuget, it is not Nuget. As an employee of Chocolatey, my intention is to keep this page up to date now I know it exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paubyuk ( talk • contribs) 10:16, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to NuGet per above. The sources given in the "keep" !votes don't inspire confidence of being able to write a detailed, neutral article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:49, 29 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: very substantial coverage in PC World and meaningful coverage in Linux Journal. Every merge/delete supporter in this conversation has access to TWL that includes coverage on PC Pro, a little mention in InfoWorld that gives a sense of the tool's significance, and more PC World stuff—put the effort in, they've even got a new centralised search bar to make it easy for you. I'm not sure what other sources we expect to exist for software topics like these that are not technical enough to be the subject of academic literature. I came here because it's a command-line package manager that I've heard of, which is a pretty good indication of substantial reach. — Bilorv ( talk) 22:05, 29 October 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of That '70s Show characters#Red Forman. MBisanz talk 14:19, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Red Forman

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

Fictional character failing WP:GNG. No SNGs are appropriate. Article is completely in universe plot description and there is no scholarly assessment of the character that would support a standalone article. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 19:53, 11 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 19:53, 11 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 12:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of That '70s Show characters#Eric Forman. MBisanz talk 14:19, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Eric Forman

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

Fictional character failing WP:GNG. No SNGs are appropriate. Article is completely in universe plot description and there is no scholarly assessment of the character that would support a standalone article. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 19:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 19:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 12:18, 19 October 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. Black Kite (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Iran Academia

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

Fails to meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), surces cited are self-published (like Lulu.com) and not independent (like https://iranacademia.com/). Pahlevun ( talk) 19:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 19:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 19:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 19:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 20:43, 4 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 20:43, 4 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Lulu is the publisher of the magazine. From my research, does not meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Happy to read other opinions, if any! gidonb ( talk) 23:45, 6 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Weak support I've just had another quick look and tidy, and added a couple of things relating to the mutual antagonism with the Iranian government. I agree that the sources are rather thin, but perhaps due to the cultural hegemony of the English language press? It probably has more political relevance than I am able to assess, and might be of some importance to Iranian ex-pats. Not going to fight for it, but it seems a pity to lose it altogether. Laterthanyouthink ( talk) 07:15, 9 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Thank you, Laterthanyouthink, for your work on this entry! Can you point me to sources that are BOTH independent of the subject and published, if any? gidonb ( talk) 13:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 21:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 12:17, 19 October 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 14:18, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Kukurmara Higher Secondary School

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

Schools are no longer inherently notable. This fails WP:NCORP.Referenecing is to listings about the school FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 11:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 11:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 11:59, 19 October 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 14:18, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Pugazh (actor)

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

After observing that the article has been flagged for notability concerns by Onmyway22, I did a private before search and it shows that the subject of the article is a non notable actor as do not satisfy any criterion from WP:NACTOR as they haven’t featured in multiple lead roles nor won any significant award(s)for actors. Furthermore they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them thus a WP:GNG fail also. Furthermore I can’t see RS optimized anywhere both in this article and a “before search” corroborates this. It appears their claim to notability is participating in a reality tv show which they didn’t even emerge successful. Celestina007 ( talk) 11:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 11:57, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 11:57, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 11:57, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 11:57, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
It is noted that Pugazh is a notable actor who emerged sucessful after the reality show. As for the actor not having been part of lead roles in movies, it is to be noted that he is currently in that process, for the movies are soon to be released. It is also noted that Pugazh also has a huge social media following owing to his popularity. Rramakash ( talk) 18:05, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
No source says they won the reality show If I’m mistaken please show me the source. Celestina007 ( talk) 18:33, 19 October 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 14:18, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Jack West (inventor)

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

An autobiography which fails to show notability as an entrepreneur, inventor, or musician. Cabayi ( talk) 09:35, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cabayi ( talk) 09:35, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Cabayi ( talk) 09:35, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Cabayi ( talk) 09:35, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 10:24, 19 October 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 14:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Gehan Rateb

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

I've tried, but I cannot find one non-trivial reference for this biography. She may have made the news in Arabic so happy to withdraw this nom if there is a non-trivial reference that I don't know how to find. Victuallers ( talk) 09:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Victuallers ( talk) 09:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete I can't find any reliable sources for this unreferenced article that has been tagged since 2008. WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 18:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Draftify - It seems like she used to be an Egyptian actress, singer, and music composer. I suggest draftifying until it's improved. However, I was unable to find reliable sources about her but added her IMDb profile in the external link section. To keep it we need reliable sources. Mommmyy ( talk) 06:07, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Draftifying is suitable for articles with the potential for expansion, or in cases where the subject is actively developing and sources are likely to accrue shortly (such as someone with a rising career, or a company about to launch a significant product, etc). In this case, the article has existed for 13 years, and in that time, no one has located any sources. Her own website is dead and her IMDB doesn't list any credits since 2013, indicating that she may have moved away from a career in the public eye - and making it unlikely that any more content about her will emerge. Thus, deletion rather than draftification is appropriate. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 23:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. For now beacuse BLPPROD is wrong deletion tag as it has couple of external links in external links section. Please see WP:BLPPROD once. Thank you ! Fade258 ( talk) 09:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:NACTOR, no significant coverage to be found. Argument about WP:BLPPROD is irrelevant since that isn't the deletion process being applied here. 144.71.77.240 ( talk) 13:01, 27 October 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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Jeffrey Ngai Pang Chin

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

Fails bio, refbomb but most if not all of the ref can't proof notability. Article build by SPA, possibly sock of the Foundation banned User:蟲蟲飛 - AINH ( talk) 09:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete. There are only reliable sources passing mention. No in-depth reliable sources. Many of the sources don't seem to be independent from the subject. Sun8908  Talk 16:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete. As a poet he does not seem meeting WP:N. The aritcle is very likely to be contributed by Jeffery Ngai himself, who is very likely the owner of WMF banned User:蟲蟲飛. -- UjuiUjuMandan ( talk) 17:17, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Please don't speculate the ownership of wiki account with public figure. Probably Jeffrey Ngai is not passing Wikipedia:Notability (academics) but it is way too wide guess to claim User:蟲蟲飛 = Jeffrey Ngai thus this article is autobiography. Matthew hk ( talk) 17:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note that forum post https://lihkg.com/thread/2698839 CANNOT be a reliable source to claim this is autobiography Matthew hk ( talk) 17:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
One more comment. It seems too coincidence that Jeffrey Ngai has made a poem 萤火虫, which has this line "蟲蟲飛，星星飛。", but "點蟲蟲, 蟲蟲飛" itself is a traditional children song. Jeffrey Ngai's poem seem more like a derived work or heavily inspired by the song. And obviously just one coincidence cannot prove it is an autobiography . Rather, created by globally lock editor, can it be a speedy deletion reason? I am rusty on deletion policy. Matthew hk ( talk) 11:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Comment Probably notable in its own field, however, not in general public sense of WP:GNG. Up to you guys checking Wikipedia:Notability (academics) of this person. Matthew hk ( talk) 17:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Also since he is an author (source [31]), probably need to check are there any book review or periodical about him as well (which the periodical need to be free of COI such as he is the editor himself) But i would guesstimate from google search it does not have these articles. Matthew hk ( talk) 17:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This newspaper have book review and interview with this writer, seen http://ep.ycwb.com/epaper/ycwb/resfile/2020-03-22/A06/ycwb20200322A06.pdf. -- 14.0.174.181 ( talk) 05:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC) — 14.0.174.181 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
    I really not sure interview counted as primary source or not. And then really not sure WP:RSN treat any of the Chinese state media, or regional newspaper owned by regional branch of Communist Party, are reliable source. Note that ycwb.com = 金羊网, is operated by 羊城晚报, which in turn owned by 羊城晚报报业集团, which according the newspaper itself ( [32]), the newsgroup is owned by CCP Guangdong branch's Publicity Department
    But at least as a Hong Kong based author, he seems did not appear in any of the Hong Kong newspapers (edit: i mean real HK newspaper instead those owned by Chinese gov that no one really read; the author does not appear in Sing Tao or Ming Po or Oriental Daily that owned by pro-Chinese businessmen. 11:58, 20 October 2021 (UTC)). Matthew hk ( talk) 09:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
    I got much difficulty to comprehend what you're trying to mean. Would you please clarify your message? If in case that doesn't work I would suggest with all due respect that you should focus on Wikipedia version(s) of the language(s) which you are familiar with. 124.217.188.201 ( talk) 09:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
    Dude....you, 124.217.188.201, and 124.217.188.195, are obvious WP:DUCK. Matthew hk ( talk) 10:42, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
    For personal opinion as i am rusty in en-wiki that i dont read everything in WP:RSN. I would say interview cannot be a prove for notability, and every single state media of Chinese cannot treat as a reliable source as default stance. Of course when the media reporting a merely a non-political CCP party member, or a state owned company, there is little COI in it so that probably state media can be used in case by case basic. but the behaviour of keep publish the same interview in different state owned newspapers, seems there is agenda in it that state media tried to print "reliable source" for zh-wiki as the zh-wiki counterpart has a few afd for a few years. Matthew hk ( talk) 11:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
    @124.217.188.201: For the record it was Matthew HK who first posted his remarks as a reply to my comment. [33] He moved his reply subsequently and I was not aware of this edit when I responded to his reply. 124.217.188.201 ( talk) 11:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Dude.....stick to the same ip next time instead of catching as WP:DUCK by vote stacking in the same ip range 124.217.188.X. The use of {{ spa}} is legit. Matthew hk ( talk) 04:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
"Its"? Isn't this an insult? 124.217.188.201 ( talk) 13:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Keep. A notable person as demonstrated by the referenced materials. 124.217.188.201 ( talk) 08:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC) Sock vote struck.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 13:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
@Bbb23: Rationale? 124.217.188.201 ( talk) 07:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC) reply
Comment and once again the drama of emerge of SPA Matthew hk ( talk) 09:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
The zh-wiki counterpart of this afd (but as deletion review ) also has ip edits that crossed out that deemed those edits are made by suspected sock: zh:Wikipedia:存廢覆核請求#魏鵬展 Matthew hk ( talk) 10:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
FYI: 124.217.188.* has been blocked in zhwiki since they are the sock of the globally banned user: User:蟲蟲飛 per zhwiki AIV report. SCP -20 00 11:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
In en-wiki, I would get the answer that ip can't link (tag) to any registered user by CU. Some ip are obvious sock they will block it but not officially tag them as sock. They are duck already due to obvious vote stacking by 124.217.188.201, and 124.217.188.195. While 14.0.174.181, this is the right venue: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/124.217.188.195. Matthew hk ( talk) 11:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Basically in zh-wiki, the deletion review said there is "a lot" of interview of Jeffrey Ngai are copy and paste (not changing a single word) published by Chinese Central Government owned Ta Kung Pao, Wen Wei Po, and their web-version counterpart from the same media company, which seems the Chinese Government want to print a lot of publication to try to "prove" he notability . And apart of these state-owned media and copy and paste articles, the subject is absent from main stream media or notable literature periodical (which peer reviewed by real notable academics) Matthew hk ( talk) 10:58, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Comment Don’t think that enwiki admin doesn’t speak Chinese, then you can lie. There are newspapers and magazines from different places in the article, including not only Hong Kong media, but also media from all over the world. See [34]、 [35]、 [36]。Please do not introduce the struggle of Hong Kong's literary world to enwiki. lihkg.com has appeared canvassing for deletion of this Article. Please note that real puppets are a very serious matter.-- 14.0.169.86 ( talk) 12:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC) — 14.0.169.86 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Dont worry on canvassing, I had told the admins and clerk (somewhere here and here; i think my brain has messed up so that i dont mention lihkg in this ANI but i falsely remember i had) that lihkg has running a cult already, admin can identify vote stacking (for deletion for lihkg POV on this author) as well as obvious SPA that no edit in other field (which is you), or obvious keep voting stack from the same ip range. Also, https://kowloonpost.hk is a web media that no one read, it just another content farm by the Central gov owned mediagroup. I probably vote keep if he appears in Apple Daily or Ming Po (oh wait, Chinese gov closed down Apple Daily, which i personally think this newspaper actually has a lot of both pro-Chinese and pro-democracy content ) Matthew hk ( talk) 12:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Also note that editors that have quite a lot of edits, would probably summoned by Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Hong Kong to this afd. This including me. It is weak to accuse other editors that placed their deletion "vote" (but wikipedia is !vote) is canvassed offsite. But since you those ip guys have no edits outside afd at all, you are more likely WP:DUCK. Matthew hk ( talk) 12:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
The latest comment on that LIHKG post was three days ago, long before this deletion nom. The real puppets are all these IPs that are from the same ISP and have almost no edit at all recently and just suddenly come and vote to keep the article- AINH ( talk) 12:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, not really relevant to this afd but why has the infobox got is nationality as Hong Kong? as HK is a part of China shouldn't his nationality be Chinese? Also its not that helpful that most of the article's references are situated at the end of the first paragraph, so which is related to each piece of info?, a fair number look like author interviews so may not be suitable (?), above discussion is also quite disturving so unless other stronger sources are found i'm leaning to a delete on this. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:57, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply
    Commenting on the concern for nationality: Not all Hong Kong residents are Chinese. One need not change the nationality to Chinese before being a permanent resident and getting a permanent ID card. see right of abode in Hong Kong. However, I do agree that "Hong Kong" should not be a nationality. When writing articles (not talking about Ngai), I would write "Hong Kong" as citizenship if I do not find enough information to say one's nationality is Chinese or whatsoever. Though if one's ethnicity is Chinese, his nationality is very likely to be Chinese (Hong Kong). Sun8908  Talk 03:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Delete Greetings. I happen to be here for I am chasing down the puppet accounts of User:蟲蟲飛 (hereafter CCF), a former admin banned by the Foundation for doing nasty things . I was the user PROVING RIGOROUSLY that CCF is Jeffrey Ngai Pang Chin. This link refers (Chinese only). If one cares to read the deduction, please feel free to drop me a line so I can translate it in English. I put it to you that, some remaining ZH admins uphold logic like "CCF is a girl, so she can't be Jeffrey Ngai Pang Chin". This is a threat, as CCF by then could always return with new accounts and bypass the global lock by just SAYING "I keep a dog, CCF doesn't. so I ain't CCF." Oh by the way, you may want to take a look on the page creator Sexymary and see how similar this is to the crazy logic some admins uphold. This is also one of the many alleged puppet accounts. Anyway, let's go back to the page deletion. If one accept my DEDUCTION (not induction, not guessing, not gut feeling), then the Chinese version (just got deleted after a huge debate between CCF's friends and foes) is an autobiography. I confirm that the current English version is a direct translation of the concerned chinese version of a particular time. So this entails the fact of this page being also an autobiography. Even if you insist stupid logic of "CCF is a she so she can't be a he", Jeffrey_Ngai_Pang_Chin is of ZERO NOTABILITY in the Hong Kong / Chinese community, not to mention if an English page is of any use. Although I cannot deny that he is becoming more famous for all the nasty things on wiki LOL. If I am also allowed to travel outside the scope: I also mentioned in the Chinese delete discussion that since CCF is/was an very experienced former wiki admin, AND, he keeps returning to wiki in an non-stop manner(and got IP and accounts banned), one has to exercise caution to (1) stop the globally banned user from returning, and, (2) stop one for "wiki-rules-tailor-making" a "look-independent" interview so that the wiki page can be restated. -- Ihatesmoker ( talk) 11:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC) reply
I don't think it's useful to "prove" whether the subject is CCF here. Analyzing the "sources" is a better way to let users on enwiki see if this is notable or worth an article. Sun8908  Talk 06:38, 28 October 2021 (UTC) reply
With all due respect, what I was proposing was that the thread is actually a self-written autobiography. -- Ihatesmoker ( talk) 08:06, 29 October 2021 (UTC) reply
I do agree that it is likely to be an autobiography, but it is not necessarily related to CCF. Sun8908  Talk 08:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC) reply
"It FEELS like an autobiography" is an induction, while the above mentioned link in Chinese is a deduction. Whether one accepts the IP evidences I quoted is a personal choice. I put it to you that if those evidences were discovered at the time, CCF would have definitely banned for being a puppet of 大撚, which entails being Jeffrey Ngai Pang Chin. -- Ihatesmoker ( talk) 09:41, 29 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Fine, my intention to comment was a reminder. Sun8908  Talk 12:40, 29 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but am open to changing to delete if the sources are refuted. In this edit, 14.0.169.86 ( talk · contribs) presented three sources. I don't see direct engagement from the participants in the discussion about these sources aside from some commentary by Matthew hk. Each of the sources contain interview content, but I believe there is sufficient non-interview content for Jeffrey Ngai Pang Chin ( simplified Chinese: 魏鹏展; traditional Chinese: 魏鵬展) to pass Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria (if the sources are reliable):

    People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

    If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.

    I am open to changing to delete if editors explain why these three sources cannot be used to establish notability. Matthew hk is the only editor who specifically discussed the sources such as calling the Kowloon Post "another content farm by the Central gov owned mediagroup" (is there a reliable source that verifies this?) and noting that "Basically in zh-wiki, the deletion review said there is 'a lot' of interview of Jeffrey Ngai are copy and paste" (is that the case for these articles as I haven't seen this demonstrated?).

    From the consensus on the reliable sources noticeboard about WP:XINHUA:

    Xinhua News Agency is the official state-run press agency of the People's Republic of China. There is consensus that Xinhua is generally reliable for factual reporting except in areas where the government of China may have a reason to use it for propaganda or disinformation. Xinhua is also generally reliable for the views and positions of the Chinese government and its officials. For subjects where the Chinese government may be a stakeholder, the consensus is almost unanimous that Xinhua cannot be trusted to cover them accurately and dispassionately; some editors favour outright deprecation because of its lack of editorial independence. There is no consensus for applying any one single label to the whole of the agency. Caution should be exercised in using this source, extremely so in case of extraordinary claims on controversial subjects or biographies of living people. When in doubt, try to find better sources instead; use inline attribution if you must use Xinhua.

    I will apply the Xinhua source analysis standard to the Chinese government-owned or affiliated sources listed here. Regarding the coverage of the poet Jeffrey Ngai Pang Chin, I do not see "a reason to use [the coverage] for propaganda or disinformation" so the sources do not seem unreliable on that basis. Is this the wrong assessment, or should the sources be unreliable on a different basis?

    My analysis does not (I added the missing word "not" as I had intended to say "does not" not "does". Cunard ( talk) 00:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)) take into consideration whether Jeffrey Ngai Pang Chin is the WMF banned User:蟲蟲飛 as this is unproven and does not affect the notability analysis. reply

    Here are quotes from each source:

    1. 邓昭祺 (2020-03-22). "现身说法 谈写诗" [Speak out. Talk about writing poems] (PDF). Yangcheng Evening News (in Chinese). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2021-11-01. Retrieved 2021-11-01.

      Yangcheng Evening News is a newspaper with a circulation of over one million. The first article notes: "Wei Pengzhan's "New Poetry Creation Method" is a very distinctive monograph on the theory and techniques of new poetry creation. The author is a young poet, and it is now convincing to speak from him. ... The technique explained by Wei Pengzhan here is often used in ancient metrical poems." The article contains interview content.

      The sidebar that contains an interview in a second article notes: "Born in Hong Kong in 1980, poet, editor-in-chief of "Fiction and Poems", Hong Kong President of Fiction and Poetry Association, Doctor of Literature. Author of poetry theory "New Poetry Creation Method" and poetry collection "Looking for the most beautiful scar in the darkest place"."

    2. "一月一新詩 疫下小確幸: 魏鵬展推動兩岸四地採詩 堅守七載" [A new poem each month, a little fortunate under the pandemic: Ngai Pang Chin promotes the collection of poems across the strait and four places and sticks to it for seven years] (PDF). Lion Rock Daily [ zh (in Chinese). 2020-09-30. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2021-11-01. Retrieved 2021-11-01.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "Ngai Pang Chin studied for a master's degree in Chinese Language and Literature at the University of Hong Kong in his early years, and later studied for a Ph.D. in Chinese at Sun Yat-Sen University, specializing in classical literature. From studying ancient poems to writing new poems, Ngai Pang Chin bluntly said that new poems are only a hundred years old and can be developed." The article contains interview content.

    3. "魏鵬展 香港詩人的堅持" [Ngai Pang Chin: The Perseverance of Hong Kong Poets]. Kowloon Post (in Chinese). 2021-02-08. Archived from the original on 2021-11-01. Retrieved 2021-11-01.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "Ngai Pang Chin is a Chinese teacher at the Prince's Primary School, but he also has an identity-the chairman of the Hong Kong Fiction and Poetry Association and the editor-in-chief of "Fiction and Poetry". His connection with new poetry originated from middle school." The article contains interview content.

    Cunard ( talk) 08:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  • @ Cunard: As a local HKers, I confirm that the latter two, namely Lion Rock Daily and Kowloon Post, are of no significance in Hong Kong. In fact this is my first time learning their existence. From my brief research just now, they are all funded by pro-Beijing camps, cover only the so-called communist-politically correct propaganda. Put aside the politics (as some WMF banned chinese users were alleged to have illegally obtained personal information of HK wiki users and turned them in to the newly established "National Security Bureau"), you can tell how popular they are by browsing their facebook pages( https://www.facebook.com/lionrockdailyhk/)(https://www.facebook.com/KowloonPost/): less than 5 likes in average per post. Some may argue that they have several thousand followers. Please also take a look on the recommendation page: fake accounts with 10 to 0 friend give 5 stars reviews in SIMPLIFIED chinese, suggested that they are of non-Hong Kong background. I doubt if any reputable newspaper would do that. They are of no impact, still they are funded to operate. You may ask "so why are they funded?". Put aside politics :)
Now, for the first source you have quoted, Yangcheng Evening News. I have just skimmed through the pdf article you have quoted and can't wait to share my findings. By the way, I am in no position to suggest the credibility of the Yangcheng Evening News, as the habitat in publishing varies from country to country. One can't expect there is any anti-Kim newspaper in the North Korea I assume. Okay, let's go back to the article. I have found the following interesting:
1. The Chinese characters right above the picture of CCF is 香港作家系列11 (Hong Kong Author Series 11). My first instinct was to search for the articles for other authors in the same series. I did so by googling 羊城晚报+"香港作家系列" (羊城晚报 being the name of the newspaper). the CCF one is the only result.
One may suggests others have expired and therefore no on the internet. WRONG: the first result is from the official website of the newspaper. So where are 1-10? any 12? I ain't suggesting there wasn't any 1-10. I just want to try if 1-10 were famous or like the "Hong Kong JK Rowling". But no, there isn't any.
One may also suggests that I shall use chinese search engine instead of google. Not to mention I did manage to search for the CCF one on google. I have tried using the chinese search engine but in vain. BUT THEN I HAVE DIGGED UP THE STORY OF THIS SERIES. The most relevant and official result is http://ep.ycwb.com/epaper/ycwb/html/2020-01/19/content_7_230293.htm . It says "自2019年7月至今，羊城晚报开辟湾区文艺评论专版，通过访谈、约稿等形式，以每周一版的规模对粤港澳三地的文学界进行全方位扫描，陆续推出“香港作家系列”“澳门作家系列”策划，引起广泛关注。经过各方面的努力推动，粤港澳三地文学的交流互动进一步热络起来，关于粤港澳大湾区文学的历史回望及未来建构也成为热门话题。" My focuses are:
通过访谈(through interview)、约稿 (call for a draft). The newspaper actually invited the authors to submit articles (and there were also interview section).
陆续推出“香港作家系列”(Hong Kong Author Series “澳门作家系列”策划 (Macau/Macao Author Series). I tried to search for 羊城晚报+"澳门作家系列". dah dah! I finally found where 1-10 are. CCF is the only Hong Kong author covered. Correct me if I am wrong. I truly can't find any trace of others Hong Kongers.
2. The section right of the picture of CCF is a Q&A section. I tried searching for the editor/reporter of this article 邹中海 but again in vain. It appears that 邹中海 may not be a regular reporter/editor. The Q&A consisted of only 8 short questions and of no depth. Base on the published time (during COVID, border shut down, they couldn't meet, only online communication) and how shallow the Q&A section was, together with the picture of CCF was obviously a self-submitted one, I think I can safely proposed that the Q&A was not seriously done, like the one in 60 minutes. I further propose that the format was likely to be one-way: not really two-way Q&A, but CCF submitted his response to 邹中海 email/SMS only. If one is interested, you can translate the following official Q&A ( http://ep.ycwb.com/epaper/ycwb/h5/html5/2020-03/22/content_6_246771.htm) using google translate: the Q&A section is a joke.
3. The bottom left of the pdf, the article on the left of the two book covers: title: 我的文学路 (My lit. Journey). The two chinese characters on its left: 自敍 (autobiography). The entire autobiography use first person description. Fair enough, it is a autobiography after-all. So this part was submitted entirely by CCF.
conclusion: I am not sure if Yangcheng Evening News is reputable. What I can tell is, this so called article consisted of a long paragraph of self-written garbage and a very short section of Q&A which was of very low quality. The entire series is fishy.
@ Cunard: you have also mentioned "My analysis does take into consideration whether Jeffrey Ngai Pang Chin is the WMF banned User:蟲蟲飛 as this is unproven and does not affect the notability analysis." This link refers (Chinese only). The Check User was not done solely because the concerned edits were like half a decade ago. The deduction of Jeffrey Ngai Pang Chin = CCF , in my humble opinion, is flawless. -- Ihatesmoker ( talk) 15:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • @ Ihatesmoker: thank you for taking the time to provide a very detailed analysis of the sources! Your analysis is precisely what I was looking for. Before your comment, I found a lot of discussion in this AfD about other topics but could not find a direct rebuttal of all three of 14.0.169.86 ( talk · contribs)'s sources.

    Regarding "My analysis does take into consideration whether Jeffrey Ngai Pang Chin is the WMF banned User:蟲蟲飛 as this is unproven and does not affect the notability analysis". I actually meant to write "My analysis does not take into consideration". I've fixed my comment to add "not". Though it does not affect my position on whether to retain or delete this article, this is really interesting analysis, though, thank you for sharing that. Cunard ( talk) 00:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. czar 07:16, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Shabakeh

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

Fails to meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) criteria Pahlevun ( talk) 19:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 19:57, 4 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 19:58, 4 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 19:58, 4 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:45, 11 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Why are you arguing that a magazine does not meet a notability guideline for people? -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 23:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: That the NBIO argument is totally inapplicable, so it really shouldn't be weighed. I don't see a real consensus for deletion yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 07:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply

AfDs for this article:

Alaa Najjar

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

There are only a few news sources about him, The page must be checked again. Emir Alemdar 80 ( talk) 07:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Emir Alemdar 80 ( talk) 07:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Also who made this deletion request is a sock puppet for the user: علي أبو عمر He usually uses Arabic and Turkish names. And a message to: Emir Alemdar 80. Alaa article will remain and you will soon be banned. -- Osps7 ( talk) 17:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy keep and close - I would be bold and remove the AfD template, but will leave that to a "closing admin", as I believe that's the procedure. This frivolous nomination is by a single-purpose sockpuppet, and should not have to wait seven days for closure. -- Fjmustak ( talk) 18:24, 20 October 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. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 16:12, 28 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Eric Falkenstein

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

Businessman who has only received coverage in a couple of unreliable cryptocurrency publications, fails WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 07:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith ( talk) 02:58, 22 September 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 10:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. His most cited paper , Preferences for stock characteristics as revealed by mutual fund portfolio holdings. in The journal of finance.
  • Weak keep. Passes criteria 1 and 7 of WP:NACADEMIC. It looks like he co-developed a notable test used in credit risk modeling/management, the Falkenstein and Boral Test. See [37] pages 62-69. Lots of hits when you search those two names together in academic search engines. 4meter4 ( talk) 04:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 12:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Being published in two or three journals isn't an indicator of notability. An academic with an h-index of 14 doesn't strike me as meeting WP:NACADEMIC. I would be more persuaded of 4meter4's argument re the Falkenstein and Boral Test if their paper on it had more than 215 citations. Writing a couple of books doesn't mean someone meets WP:NAUTHOR unless there's clear indication that those books are notable. As someone that has self-published a book and then paid for it to be reviewed (Kirkus says of itself "As an unpublished or self-published author, it can be a relentless struggle to attract a significant amount of attention to your book or manuscript. By purchasing a Kirkus indie review, authors can have the opportunity to build some name recognition and get noticed by agents, publishers and other industry influencers.") I see this article as part of Falkenstein's self-promotion. I am happy to be persuaded to keep if more references can be added that show that his work has been written about in depth by reliable, independent publications. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 17:06, 4 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The citation profile is not indicative of a distinguished research career. The book reviews fail to be independent, in-depth in their content, and/or reliably published. XOR'easter ( talk) 22:43, 4 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, as per Curb Safe Charmer. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:48, 7 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. He has only two noteworthy scholarly publications, among other lesser ones, but I think they are significant enough to make a case for WP:PROF#C1: (1) "Preferences for stock characteristics as revealed by mutual fund portfolio holdings", a solo paper with 4-digit citation counts in Google Scholar, and (2) RiskCalc, a system for credit risk assessment apparently developed by Falkenstein, Boral, and Carty; Google Scholar has nearly 2000 hits for "RiskCalc" and their joint work describing it has over 200 citations. (This appears to be the same as the "Falkenstein and Boral Test" cited by 4meter4.) — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, as per Curb Safe Charmer. Falkenstein “was among the top influencer bloggers according to the Wall Street Journal”, that is, in a paywalled article from 2010. The h-index number is meaningless unless we know what is typical in that field. It would just about be enough to get tenure as a physicist; but Falkenstein is not a physicist! Nwhyte ( talk) 20:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last relist. Does he hit NPROF or no?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 06:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. His most cited paper, Preferences for stock characteristics as revealed by mutual fund portfolio holdings in The journal of finance. has been cited an extraordinary 1376 times. One work of that sort is enouht to show someone influential ,regadless of subject, even though he is not primarily an academic. DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Looking at related articles on Google Scholar via the link at the bottom of Falkenstein's listing is interesting on two fronts: firstly it shows that 1376 isn't an exceptional amount of citations in this field of academia, and secondly we can click through to other authors and answer Nwhyte's comment above "the h-index number is meaningless unless we know what is typical in that field". Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 08:59, 28 October 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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Athanasios Kafkalides

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

With regret. I can't find any sources to suggest the topic meets WP:GNG or WP:NPROF. The only source I can find is this family website, but perhaps that's a better place to host this material. The same article is at Greek Wikipedia but I don't see any additional sources there (though I don't read Greek; relying on Google Translate). Thoughts? Ajpolino ( talk) 02:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino ( talk) 02:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino ( talk) 02:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I now see from Twinkle/AfD magic that there was a previous AfD from 2005 I missed in the history. I'm not sure that discussion adds much. We now have the Greek-character name (see link above). I looked for obituaries or any other source without luck. If there's something I missed, I'm happy to be educated. Ajpolino ( talk) 02:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Fringe psychiatrist has made no impact on mainstream literature based on GS citations. Of local interest only. Xxanthippe ( talk) 03:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC). reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 09:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 06:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The only source on him in Greek is a biography written by his son Zephyros Kafkalides (Ζέφυρος Καυκαλίδης in Greek), published in 2011. I suspect that the IP that created the article in 2005 was him, since whoever wrote its content had access to unpublished personal meterial of Athanasios Kafkalides. Later, after the publication of the book, he came back as user "Zephyros1948". Btw, the article in the Greek WP is just a translation of this one. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 ( talk) 06:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
    PS. Keep Sources added by user Spiros71 show clues of notability. Some I had them removed, since they were not third-party, independent and/or reliable sources, but that doesn't change the overall impact made by the rest of the additional references. The main issue now is to keep the WP:NPOV in the article. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 ( talk) 20:00, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Please revisit the page to see updated links and references. Spiros71 ( talk) 09:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Comment The above user Spiros71 seems to have a connection to the subject [38], [39], [40]. As fas as the sources added: one is only his son talking about him, the other is a brief presentation of his theory based on himself, and the third article, the only one that refers specifically to him, is a publication of a German psychoanalytic society of a specific trend, e.g. not a classic academic journal. Anyway, Kafkalidis obviously doesn't meet neither the general notability criteria nor those for academics and scientists. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 ( talk) 10:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
      The above user Chalk19 appears to be very convinced that an article on a pioneering Greek psychiatrist with a number of references in third-party journals and a considerable bibliography, should not be part of Wikipedia, and appears to be spending a lot of time and energy to that end, i.e. by downgrading specific academic journals. I am quite convinced to the contrary. Spiros71 ( talk) 11:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
      @ Spiros71: You have your opinion and I have mine. You think I spend a lot of time and energy to have the artcle deleted. Well, you appear to be spending a lot of time to have Kafkalides in WP. You even created an article in Greek WP on his son [41]. Seems that you have spent a lot of time to have the whole family included in a couple of WPs ! ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 ( talk) 11:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
      I spend a lot of time on numerous articles that I believe deserve the world's attention and I happen to have specialist knowledge on a number of different fields that may come in handy in this, as well as in my ability to appreciate what is encyclopedic material and what is not. I do not spend any time on trying to get content deleted. My crusade is not to retract, is to give. And it so happens that this article in its 1st nomination already got a '''keep''' consensus, which is an indication that I am not the only one thinking that way. Spiros71 ( talk) 11:43, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
      Υour approach is "psycological", not base on WP's guidelines on notability. What you may think on who deserves the world's attention via an article in WP is irrelevant, regardless if you are right or wrong on a subject. It's only the WP policy that matters. So, writing an article on a no-notable person is not creative, and deleting is not destructive, as you implied against my stance; quite the contrary. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 ( talk) 18:12, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply
      If you wish to argue about each other rather than about whether this topic meets WP:N, please do so at one of your talk pages. Ajpolino ( talk) 18:43, 22 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep. Many books cite Kafkalides. Search also Google Scholar for his impact in modern literature-- Kalogeropoulos ( talk) 05:17, 24 October 2021 (UTC) reply

GS cites are tiny, and I can't find these many books. Xxanthippe ( talk) 05:31, 24 October 2021 (UTC). reply
  • Keep, as there are many books which cite him Jackattack1597 ( talk) 19:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The argument (or maybe more accurately WP:VAGUEWAVE) repeated above that he has been frequently cited would be a basis for a WP:PROF#C1 claim, if true. However, it appears to be false. On Google Scholar, searching for author:A-Kafkalides finds only single-digit citation counts except for one work, The knowledge of the womb, listed as having 37 citations. I also searched for author:Καυκαλίδης but found zero additional citations. This is far far too few to pass WP:PROF#C1. No other claim to notability is evident in the article (which is puffed up with brief mentions that do not count towards WP:GNG) nor has been identified above. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:28, 26 October 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 13:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Lee Evans (producer)

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

Promotional article; remarkably similar to the biography on his website. Also badly fails GNG with no RS available. Best thing on google is this blog interview. Mottezen ( talk) 04:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mottezen ( talk) 04:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mottezen ( talk) 04:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Mottezen ( talk) 04:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Mottezen ( talk) 04:29, 12 October 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 06:41, 19 October 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 Montrose Area School District. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 ( talk) 05:16, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Teacher strikes in pennsylvania

Teacher strikes in pennsylvania (  | 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 with WP:GNG guideline.  ||   Orbit Wharf   💬 05:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 09:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 09:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 15:04, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 10:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 06:40, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Montrose Area School District as Diannaa has indicated the content was copied from originally. That addresses the bathwater without throwing out the baby and WP:ATTREQ. From there, a splitting discussion is possible. – The Grid ( talk) 18:29, 19 October 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 14:16, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Samoa–Spain relations

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

Although this looks like a well sourced article, it's about relations between Samoa and European Union not Spain. There is a lack of third party coverage of actual relations between Spain and Samoa. LibStar ( talk) 05:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:34, 19 October 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 Scouting in California#Marin Council. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 ( talk) 05:12, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Marin Council

Marin Council (  | 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 Boy Scout council. This angelfire website about patches obviously can't confer notability on the subject, and this article in the local paper doesn't do that either. It's a plain fact that such councils simply do not generate the kind of coverage that makes em pass the GNG, and that the articles on them are little more than bulletin boards (in this case, about the camps they run) with primary sourcing. Drmies ( talk) 03:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 03:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 03:43, 19 October 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 Across the Universe. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 03:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Lizzie Bravo and Gayleen Pease

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

WP:DEL-REASON #8: "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline". The content of the page can easily be subsumed into the " Across the Universe" song article, given that the sole point of notability about Brazzo and Pease is a single moment when the pair contributed to a Beatles recording. A Google search turns up very little of interest, in terms of reliable sources. A 2015 BBC piece and a more recent interview at CultureSonar provide some extra detail in the form of Brazzo's recollections years after the event; but again, this can easily be accommodated at the song article. JG66 ( talk) 03:05, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WWGB ( talk) 04:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WWGB ( talk) 04:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. WWGB ( talk) 04:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WWGB ( talk) 04:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Merge with " Across the Universe": I haven't been able to find anything significant outside of their contribution to the song either. Tkbrett (✉) 12:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Merge – no question. – zmbro ( talk) 12:57, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Merge to Across the Universe. Not independently notable. Everything can be covered in the article on the recording of the song. Pawnkingthree ( talk) 13:05, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Merge per nom, yes. -- Lockley ( talk) 03:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 03:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Baltimore and Ohio 4500

Baltimore and Ohio 4500 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 03:07, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 03:07, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Its notibility is being the world's first USRA locomotive, how is that insignificant? Mr. Railroader ( talk) 03:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
I suggest you read WP:N. Notability in the Wikipedia sense is different than the dictionary definition of the word. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 03:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Which section..? Mr. Railroader ( talk) 04:30, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Oh boy, bare links to a archive.org page. If it was a notable example of the class, it should be kept as an article. I don't see that it's registered on the NRHP... Article needs work. Oaktree b ( talk) 13:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I think the references, as well as its status as a Historic Mechanical Engineering Landmark, are enough to establish notability. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 14:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: This source and this one detail the history and design, the Smithsonian provides significant coverage, and this site has a collection of reliable sources under the Class Q-3 (Locobase 1038) section, one of which is already on the page. This is enough to pass WP: GNG. Heartmusic678 ( talk) 11:54, 21 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: I find it hard to understand how this locomotive is not significant and why it does not deserve it's own article. It is one of two pieces that are sole survivors of modern B&O steam power, it is the first USRA light mikado ever produced and done so in 20 days, it is the sole survivor of the entire Q class for the B&O, it is an ASME National Historic Mechanical Engineering Landmark, and it survived being cut up by an gentleman who worked for the B&O early in his life. If the stars had not aligned, this engine never would have been saved. All of the references can be cited and cleaned up but a notification for deletion is way out of line. Please look at the references below as confirmation of information and reasoning. Furthermore, please look at the citation below regarding deletion as the page is being built on and improved. It states: "Competence: Nominators for deletion should demonstrate a reasonable level of competence. This means articles, categories or templates should not be nominated in a routine fashion, nor because one feels too lazy to check for sources, or if the content is still being built or improved.'''" [1], [2], [3], [4]

References

  1. ^ Smith, Adam. "Baltimore & Ohio #4500, Freight, USRA 2-8-2A". The American Society of Mechanical Engineers. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Retrieved 24 October 2021.
  2. ^ Rasmussen, Frederick. "Edward L. Striegel, 82, ran railroad parts firm, enriched B&O; museum". Baltimore Sun. Baltimore Sun. Retrieved 24 October 2021.
  3. ^ Gus, R. ""Light Mikado" type (2-8-2) Q3 Class #4500". rgusrail.com. Digimarc. Retrieved 24 October 2021.
  4. ^ "Mangojuice". "Wikipedia:Introduction to deletion process". Wikipedia. Wikipedia. Retrieved 24 October 2021.
IP editor, since you seem to be well versed on Wikipedia policy, you should also know that the rgusrail site is a WP:SPS and does not count towards establishing notability. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 14:33, 24 October 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 List of Marvel Comics characters: A. Based on arguments and precedence, merging seems like the suitable course here. Certainly no consensus to delete. (non-admin closure) Etzedek24 ( I'll talk at ya) ( Check my track record) 18:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Aquarius (Marvel Comics)

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

No non-primary sources present in article. This article compilation of five different fictional characters, and I can find no significant coverage of any of them from reliable, independent sources. – Pbrks ( t • c) 18:54, 11 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. – Pbrks ( t • c) 18:54, 11 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. – Pbrks ( t • c) 18:54, 11 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 02:38, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 03:42, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Patrick Maher (writer)

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

Appears to fail WP:AUTHOR, and there is a polite request for the article to be deleted by the subject here coming via an intermediary with a declared COI. Qt.petrovich ( talk) 09:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Qt.petrovich ( talk) 09:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Comment it would be helpful if @ Simplewikipedian: were able to tell us which parts of the article are false/misguided, if they know? Elemimele ( talk) 12:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Based on the sources from the article, Pleng's Song has received coverage in The Himalayan Times, The Jakarta Globe, and The Times of India, giving it coverage in at least 3 independent sources, making it a notable work under WP:NBOOK, and making Patrick Maher a notable author under WP:NAUTHOR The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. If there are issues with the content of the article, those should be resolved separately, but the subject appears notable. Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 15:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Weak delete I'm going to carefully go through the article and try to remove anything that cannot be verified by the sources provided, starting with the claims made by @ Simplewikipedian:. The verification of the highlighted issues (the colleges attended, the comments about his family, the claim that his first book is a bestseller in Japan) comes from an interview with Cybersansar, which despite being an interview with the subject, I cannot call a reliable source, as it appears to be a gossip blog with little to no journalistic oversight. I'm not sure about the "#1 in Amazon Japan" claim as the other source to claim this appears to be a legitimate newspaper. As for the book reviews being paid, I have no way of verifying that besides the word of Simplewikipedian. That said, the reviews only exist in archive form (allegedly at the request of the author) so that does give them less weight in my view. Taken as a whole, I'm having doubts that the coverage of the books is enough to meet WP:NBOOK, especially with the assertion that they were undisclosed paid reviews that were taken down later, which therefore casts doubt on the notability of the author, so I'm changing my !vote for now. Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 16:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Reply to commentsThis article has many false information about the person. The references to the universities attended are false. The comment about his mother is slanderous. The claim that the father was a physician is incorrect. The birthdate is incorrect. The claim that his first book was a best seller in Japan has no valid sources and is also false And there is also no evidence that he settled in Khlomngsamwa District, this also a false information The references on the book Pleng's Song that got archived were mostly paid, and they have been taken down by the publisher on request from the Subject himself.@ Qwaiiplayer: @ Elemimele: @ Qt.petrovich:@ আফতাবুজ্জামান:I would like to grab your attention to my comment. Simplewikipedian ( talk) 03:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC) reply
    • That's most helpful. If consensus ends up that Maher is notable enough to require an article, then the dodgy information can nevertheless be removed. The reference to a Japanese No. 1 best seller must be removed unless someone finds a reference pretty quick-like; it's not supported by the current one. There is no earthly reason to refer to a third, as-yet unpublished book; the author's birth-date is irrelevant and unsupported by any reference; his personal background including the information about his parents is sourced from an interview with him, which is not a reliable source, and could therefore be removed. If the information is slanderous, however, his dispute should be with the magazine that published the interview, as it claims he said very much what is repeated in the WP article. To be honest, I don't care much whether what remains remains, or is deleted; it will basically be an article that says he published two books that got decent reviews, and that's marginally-notable, harmless information that's already in the public sphere. Elemimele ( talk) 05:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC) reply
      • I agree the two self-published books are marginally notable information but I suggest we move forward with deletion. Still the information is not very remarkable and lacks sources. The fact that so many sources have been removed by new organizations supports the argument/request for deletion in my opinion. Thank you Simplewikipedian ( talk) 07:48, 5 October 2021 (UTC) reply
        • To be honest, the more I look at this, the weirder it looks. (1) Let's be clear, authors don't get to choose whether WP has an article or not; if they're notable, someone can write an article; it's only in marginal cases where someone's teetering on the brink of notability that their personal request can tip the balance; but (2) I hadn't noticed that both books are self-published. It surprised me, because I'd done a search for reviews, and Pleng's song in particular seemed to have reviews in sources I would normally regard as quite weighty. In general, self-published books rarely get that sort of coverage (unless the author is famous, ludicrously attractive and it's a quiet day in daytime TV...). (3) the problem of mis-information, if indeed the information is wrong, is not going to go away, because most of the WP information is still on other sites about Maher and the books; remember, we have to be cautious about whether someone claiming to act on behalf of Maher is indeed doing so; but (4) even with solid reviews in a good source, an author with only two published books, neither currently available(?), and little demonstration of lasting impact, is a bit edgy for notability. So far as I'm concerned, this could go either way. Elemimele ( talk) 15:50, 5 October 2021 (UTC) reply
          • I would like to add more, "The fact that neither the books are still available is a good point that I overlooked. It not only shows a lack of an enduring impact and notability of the two self-published books, but also provides further evidence that the sources were most likely temporary promotional pieces that had been paid for a long time ago (Now all eleven references that are available are being archived from the original). News sources do not take down authentic coverage. " Simplewikipedian ( talk) 14:22, 6 October 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Simplewikipedian has been blocked for socking and UPE. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:48, 23 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given that the editor pushing deletion has been blocked indefinitely, relisting this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 22:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • VRT agent comment: I have been in communication through VRT with the subject of this article (as this person does not have a official website/email there is no way for me to verify the identity of the person emailing. However, I am reasonably confident the person emailing is the subject of this article).
    He asked me to summarize what he sent via email in this deletion discussion. He says similar points to Simplewikipedian above, who is blocked for concerns about using a previous blocked account (this account is a paid editor and not the subject of this article). This includes the references being paid for pieces which were not truthful and were written to promote, and therefore are not reliable or independent. He also claims that the point about one of his books being a bestseller is also false.
    Furthermore, in the email thread he asks for deletion of the article about him. As such, I suggest that in the event of no rough consensus the closer uses WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE to close the discussion as delete. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 12:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's take another crack at a consensus before considering WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE as the sole policy at play.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 02:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 03:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 03:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Beaches Outreach Project

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

Fails WP:GNG. 1 gnews hit, and an orphan article. LibStar ( talk) 01:16, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 01:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 01:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 03:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Ajker Patrika

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

No WP:SIGCOV. I did google search (in Bangla & English), but didn’t find anything. There are some refs on the article but none of them about this paper & some are just passing mentions. Fails WP:GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk) 01:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 01:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 01:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 03:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Porters Corner, Montana

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

A literal road corner with a few houses nearby. Montana Place Names (2009) doesn't mention it as a community. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Montana_Place_Names_from_Alzada_to_Zortm/08rAI9NEbcYC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=porters+corner&pg=PA210&printsec=frontcover wizzito | say hello! 00:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 00:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 00:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
  • delete as the only evidence I can find is a building at the corner which is gone now and about which I can find nothing. GHits that aren't pure clickbait refer to it to locate other things or as a waypoint on scenic drives. Mangoe ( talk) 02:21, 26 October 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 Fairmont Hot Springs Resort. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 03:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Fairmont Hot Springs, Montana

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

It's not an unincorporated community. It's a resort. wizzito | say hello! 00:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 00:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 00:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
If you are correct, then both the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) need correction more than this article. The USGS indicates that it is "Populated Place" (as opposed to simply a "Place"--somewhere that human activity occurs). Additionally, the USGS 1994 map for the area indicates both "Fairmont" (a variant name for Fairmont Hot Springs) and "Gregson Hot Springs" (a variant name for the Fairmont Hot Springs Resort). Butte North MDT uses a green sign for Fairmont Hot Springs, as opposed to the brown signs used for resorts, (for examplet Road sign for Blacktail Mountain resort). An Errant Knight ( talk) 05:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
The WP:GNIS is well known for its errors in type classification, so yes the USGS needs a lot of correction, hence the hundreds of AFDs we've gone through for places. Same for transportation departments in many states that use the USGS data, and their listings are regardless not the same as notability here. Reywas92 Talk 12:34, 19 October 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 Bighorn National Forest. ✗ plicit 03:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Burgess Junction, Wyoming

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

I highly doubt this is a named community, but instead a named intersection. There are places like Bear Lodge Resort ( http://bearlodgeresort.com) and a USDA RV park ( https://www.fs.usda.gov/recarea/bighorn/recarea/?recid=30912) nearby but they seem to use nearby Dayton, Wyoming as an address, with Bear Lodge using it likely as some sort of waypoint. Looks like there are newspapers.com results, but it might just be referring to it as a waypoint or an actual intersection. wizzito | say hello! 00:17, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 00:17, 19 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 00:17, 19 October 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_October_19&oldid=1052914981"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE