Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 06 February 08 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 07:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Jamiatul Hidaya, Jaipur

Jamiatul Hidaya, Jaipur (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It is a madrassa that claims to have 173 acres of land. It does not seem to have anything else. Sabeelul hidaya ( talk) 08:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep It seriously meets WP:GNG. See this at the Milli Gazette. "The most famous among them is the Jamiatul Hidaya, billed as the 'hi-tech madrasa'". (See). And this, "Jamiatul Hidaya is not just an institution, rather a movement...". Here it has been considered a third-type of madrasa, which gives it prominence in the madrasa history of India. Journal of Objective Studies discussing it. If I dig up more resources, there would be plenty, but I believe this is enough. The nominator has not tried a legit WP:BEFORE. ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 13:50, 26 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per The Aafī rationale above. Besides this, the article has news coverage by 3 different Indian newspapers The Times of India, The Siasat Daily and an in-depth profile of this university by The Milli Gazette. Ngrewal1 ( talk) 19:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The first reference provided by The Aafī looks like a PR puff piece press release that was written by someone with a connection to the school. Either they teach for it, paid by them to write the article, both, or just have zero journalistic integrity as an author. Either way it doesn't bode well for the reference going toward notability. The second reference isn't much better. What it says about this being "the most famous among the hi-tech madrasa" is hyperbolic nonsense. Notability isn't determine by rando author saying something is famous. Whereas, the third reference is a trivial name drop. It seems like every time there's an AfD for a madrasa people come along to post a bunch of trivial PR pieces, attack the nominator, and say something along the lines of "Keep because so and so says it's one of the most famous madrasa in wherever. So it must be notable." In the meantime Madrasas aren't inherently notable and we should really do better by not allowing every single madrasa to exist on Wikipedia no matter how trivial or promotional the coverage of it is. Especially not just because some random author thinks it's the greatest thing to come along in Islamic education since writing was invented or whatever. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 05:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    It is illogical to say that the chancellor of one of major central universities in India, MANUU, was paid to write an article about Jamiatul Hidaya. FYI, he isn't worth it. The sources from Google books aren't just trivial mentions rather they discuss the subject, but sadly "Google preview is limited". I agree that every madrasa isn't notable but always AfDing a "specific set of institutions" is suspicious. We have had such behavior in past from Authordom. I do not want to make you feel bad but the way nomination has been carried out, it makes it clear that they didn't even try searching for it first and just went forward AfDing it. Nonetheless, I'm searching for more significant sources. Thanks. ─ The Aafī (talk) 08:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC) reply
I don't know what you mean by "he isn't worth it", but it isn't much of a stretch that a university would pay an educator to write about them. I don't know why he would use such hyperbolically non-neutral language like "set amidst the peaceful sylvan surroundings of Jaipur’s Ramgarh, encircled by a tranquil valley and cool lake" to describe the school unless he was being paid. The article is literally an add for the university. As far as if the nomination is suspicious, there's nothing that says people can't work in area they are interested in. Plus, someone could make the same insinuations about your motives since your involved in every AfDs about madrasas that I'm aware of. You've done pretty weird defending of certain things to. Like saying he isn't worth paying to write an add for the university. Which seems like something only someone connected to the university or him would know. Not that I'm saying you have a COI, because it's a weak way to handle things, but I am making the point that you'd probably be better off not questioning other people's actions when yours are also suspect. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 08:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless ( talk) 07:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: Apart from the Milli Gazette article that I linked above, I was able to get hold of second source, which I have used in the article. The source "Qasmi 2005" gives more than a page to Jamiatul Hidaya. I also added one Urdu source in the Further reading section because I do not feel expanding the article at the moment. The Urdu source is published journal by the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (though significant, I'd take this a 'low reliable source') but I recently discovered that this Madrasa has got over two pages in Education and Muslims in India since Independence, published by Institute of Objective Studies, India. I'm on my search and hopefully I'd get more sources that significantly discuss this madrasa as the "Qasmi 2005" source regards this a third type of madrasa in India, and states that in India madrasas follow three setups, one among them separately led by the Jamiatul Hidaya. This makes the prominence of this Jamia more national. The sources so far make a tendency towards passing WP:GNG. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per above. This meets GNG and WP:NSCHOOL as a notable institute in Jaipur. Hawawshibread ( talk) 11:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:48, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep: as per TheAafi's reasonings. Though, it needs more inline citations. - Hatchens ( talk) 14:46, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No participation after two relists. I considered soft deletion as an option, but given the half-hearted nomination statement, I'm going with no consensus. RL0919 ( talk) 22:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Kazim Can

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

Notability is under question — Toghrul R ( t) 08:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:VAGUEWAVE.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Liz Read! Talk! 03:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Hans B. Ringger

Hans B. Ringger (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BEFORE search turned up no new sources. The references all on the article are WP:PRIMARY and do not establish WP:GNG. With that being said, this individual does not pass WP:GNG. Rollidan ( talk) 19:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:10, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete There are currently 109 general authorities in the LDS church. Are we going to have articles on all of them, and all their predecessors? The only interesting thing about Ringger is that he was Swiss; and that is not very interesting! Nwhyte ( talk) 01:27, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Liz Read! Talk! 03:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Syed Ashik Rahman

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

Other than one interview and some passing mentions, there is no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Didn't won any significant award or anything. Fails WP:GNG, WP:DIRECTOR, WP:ANYBIO. (Also, i think the article creator has connection with the subject, see this photo, took by article creator) আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk) 22:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete The cited sources are: a primary source interview with no independent analysis, brief quotes of him, one-line producer credits, and a press release about a non-notable business award from a non-notable organization ("a network of more than 16,000 top marketing executives"). Searches of the usual Google types, in English and Bengali, found nothing more substantial. Without significant coverage in indpendent reliable sources, does not meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. -- Worldbruce ( talk) 19:12, 10 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Liz Read! Talk! 03:55, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Lychnostatis Open Air Museum

Lychnostatis Open Air Museum (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Nothing in gnews, and gets small mentions in gbooks. LibStar ( talk) 22:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete It seems the main issue with this article is significant coverage. While many independent and reliable sources have said something about this place, that something is usually a single sentence, and the most significant coverage I found, in the actual published and completely real book DK Eyewitness Top 10 Crete by Robin Gauldie, has a grand total of 43 words to say about it, which is less then half of WP:100W. And some people don't even think 100W is a high enough standard. casualdejekyll 23:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Fiction Syxx

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

Heavy metal/progressive rock band formed by musicians who have played with sort-of-notable bands before. However, I cannot find sufficient significant coverage to meet our notability criteria. (I also don't see how it meets WP:BAND.) Pichpich ( talk) 21:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Pichpich ( talk) 21:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - The band just hasn't been noticed. And while there are some possibilities for a band to qualify for notability if it is made up of members that are notable elsewhere, that is not the case here. With the exception of the now-departed Tony Franklin, the members of this band are journeymen who have all been side players in other bands for brief periods, and often long after those bands' glory days. Therefore this band must stand on its own, and it has not been noticed by any reliable sources in music media. I can only find them in their own social media and occasional non-critical (and probably paid) promotional sites like these: [1], [2]. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 22:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Yggdrassil (network protocol)

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

WP:TOOSOON and insufficient reliable sources for notability. Only sources are github reports, and a presentation at a conference. Article says the product is still in development. Disputed PROD, and rationale for disputing the PROD was because disambiguation was required, which is not a rationale to overcome lack of notability. Singularity42 ( talk) 20:31, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

If the differentiation in the stub can be incorporated in the disambiguation page (which currently fails to capture several entities of that name), then deletion will do no harm. Although, one of those nice templates saying "This article is a stub, please improve it" would probably yield results! Michaelgraaf ( talk) 08:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Singularity42 ( talk) 20:31, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Obvious not fit for namespace as it stands and AfD is no place to improve such a poor effort. Creator's dePROD without improvement seems either disruptive or showing a lack competency which is not worthy of TOOSOON/draftification option. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 08:56, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Blablubbs ( talk) 20:51, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Globcal International

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

Fails WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS. The "Secretary General" of the organization, David J. Wright (wiki user Problemsmith) describes it himself as not "registered with any authority" and "not having a physical business location". [3] There are no reliable sources supplied in the article and none can easily be found on the web. The "parent organization" is listed in the article as Ecology Crossroads Cooperative Foundation, which was also set up by Wright. In fact, it appears that the entire article refers to no more than a set of social media accounts and a few web pages. The Facebook account has fewer than 5000 followers.

The page was created by user Ingenosa. This is almost certainly a sockpuppet account for Problemsmith given the writing style employed when he complained about edits to the article [4]. Wright admits on his user page to having employed multiple accounts in the past ("I lost track of the other accounts I originally have used") [5]. Another very likely sockpuppet is Rokrunestone, who signed up to oppose the deletion of the wiki page for Wright and was promptly banned the next day. [6]. The contribution history for user Shamansfriend would strongly suggest they are yet another sockpuppet.

Most of the supplied references in the article refer to the organization's website which appears to have been constructed solely by Wright himself. The single citation which appears valid at first sight is the United Nations listing [7], but as that page itself makes clear, "a profile in this database and on this website does not in and of itself connote any affiliation with the United Nations". Barry Wom ( talk) 19:39, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

This is a space a deletion discussion, not a sockpuppetry case. Some of this belongs here, other parts belong at a sockpuppetry investigastion. @ Barry Wom Starship SN20 ( talk) 20:58, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
From Problemsmith: I respectfully deny any and all allegations of sockpuppetry at anytime on Wikipedia, Ingenosa is a person that I knew who died in 2020, and yes I was there when she was collaborating with officers in Romania, Saudi Arabia and the UK when the article was originally written, but it is not sockpuppetry. Rokrunestone was one of the cofounders of Globcal, Dr. Peter James, that was deceased in 2012, he was from England living in Romania and had a personal argument with Wikipelli over membership with our organization who took his vengeance on James by attacking me, still not sockpuppetry, nonetheless I am glad the article about me was deleted, it was a birthday present to me I never asked for from friends and family that Wikipedia took away.
I have been involved in editing and updating links and infobox data on this GLOBCAL article, but not really anything else, nor do I believe any major updates or much context has been added since the article was originally written. The organization has seen communicative support from David Rockefeller and others in the past; it was relatively active in the Middle East and engaged in organizing protests of the Arab Spring in Egypt, some of its more notable antics have been suppressed with the removal of several Facebook groups. News and competition for it, are things that have changed dramatically in the past 10 years, the article about Globcal International is more than 12 years old, the organization has had offices in Vienna, Switzerland and Belize, most of which does not appear in the article; it is currently registered with the Sustainable Development Goals program at the UN as well are some of its individual members. Members of the organization one from Nepal and another from Russia were personally involved in writing the Sustainable Development Goals at an event in Switzerland in 2015 to be introduced just months later. The organization was also incorporated in Washington, DC as an LLC from 2010 to 2013, something which I had nothing to do with, many of the things that should be said in the article have not been, because I generally do not edit articles about myself, except on my Wikipedia User Page which is pompous and ponderous. It is an organization that has many actors and several active diplomatic professionals.
Yes sure I was blocked on Friday past, for disruptive editing after having numerous relevant edits reverted by the person now making this article deletion request, accusing me of sockpuppetry on a page about me, that was deleted more than 10 years ago now, clearly his way of trying to remove me from Wikipedia, with deceased authors in 3 countries, even David Rockefeller has died. All of these vengeful allegations because an article I was working on became the compulsive focus objective of Barry Wom who clearly panders to Big Chocolate perhaps as a paid editor or maybe just because he likes big chocolate, more than fine and aromatic chocolate, IDK? It is clear he focused on revamping the article during the 48 block imposed on me, appealed and upheld by ToBeFree who I had complained to about the reversions and being blindsided by the competing editor, something which I accepted as the penalty for my incivility, for the admin that resolved the dispute there were no excuses for my behavior other than to uphold the charge for being uncivil. For me it ended there and I told myself I would not work on the Types of chocolate article any more, because Barry Wom made it abundantly clear in the following days making over 20 reconstructive edits, that my edits were not and would not be welcome there despite being well-referenced and in good-faith, so is life, perhaps the 1000 chocolate companies all around the world making several billion a year is not notable enough compared to the big chocolate people and their types of chocolate, ok already I do understand that, small chocolate despite being 1000 companies against the 25 big ones just means they need their own page for their own types of chocolate. However, I had never imagined becoming targeted, bullied or having allegations of misconduct or having other allegations thrown at me based on a Wikipedia editor taking personal reprisals which speaks more now about his civility who is focused on, my work or work that I am associated with solely based on my personal association with ideas and concepts that I engage become involved with like chocolate. Whether you can call it a reprisal by Barry Wom to attack now everything I stand for or including activities from more than 10 years ago is suspiciously revengeful, spiteful and uncivil; especially less than a few days after being delivered a penalty is not a coincidence, now has escalated to the equivalent of double-jeopardy or worse, because now I am being investigated, stalked, threatened, and accused by a victim with a grudge to settle making immoral or otherwise dishonorable conduct a norm on Wikipedia all because I defended a few edits with an uncivil tone and approach. It also appears that he is out to do me in with the people I must supervise at Globcal International and all the others that work there.
The fact alone that I did not incorporate Globcal International in 2010 shortly after I founded it in 2009, or worked there for the several years afterwards is enough to justify its continued existence on Wikipedia despite some time of inactivity during the past several years. Globcal was on TV in Italy, Serbia and local stations in Jedda and Riyad during my inactivity with it where a UN program was development enhanced called the Stop TB Partnership by its authors. The organization has also been recognized by other world leaders including Barack Obama that aided in starting it in 2009, he still follows us on Twitter; this was all when he had his czars that he fired several months later leaving our contact Van Jones without a job and us without a contact. There are many organizations on Wikipedia that do not even exist anymore, there are others that have not existed for 200 years also.
When I told the Wikipedia administrator ToBeFree I would not disruptively edit any further, I really thought that would be the end of it and I was sincere, why I am being singled-out, being forced to have to suffer additionally at the hands of the victim for which I already suffered a penalty for attacking him over reverting my edits is not right and does not make Wikipedia a hospitable place, a safe one or for welcoming to any new editors, something that is encouraged in most Wikiprojects. I am really sorry to have tried to improve the types of chocolate article, please Mr. Barry Wom, will you ever forgive me? I am really sorry to have attacked your Talk page. Or am I destined to continuing unfair treatment by yourself, admins and editors forevermore on Wikipedia? I am not sure what it feels like to be bullied, but this sure does feel like it. Problemsmith ( talk) 04:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply
If any of the above claims for notability are factual, you should be supplying reliable sources for them. Barry Wom ( talk) 11:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Barry Wom, it is not my goal on Wikipedia to write about myself or legitimize the organization outside of my User Page, Globcal International is a volunteer organization that promotes 'big tent' political positions to address world issues with global citizens (activists and advocates) it started on Facebook and that is where it mostly works since the other networks it engaged have lost users and the failure of Google+. Since 2018 all of our official work uses Google Workspace and Meta Workplace, private networks instead of public. As I said, I am not here to squabble, Globcal International is an organization that has some noteworthy people in their own countries and abroad, some may even have articles in their own countries, the only part important to us is that they are members and what they do for us professionally, which really is not a lot considering they are volunteers and their principle connection is as members that need service to boost their own careers or help them develop their own programs. This is not an issue about notability for an article that was very notable in 2009 or our pride as an organization because our efforts are promoted with sensitivity and humility, this is an issue about creating a dim view about an organization simply because I am associated with it and stuck in the middle with a title and leadership role for the legitimate entity, that I do not personally lead except legally, that you are seeking to destroy and using suspected sockpuppetry as an excuse to appease yourself after I attacked you on Wikipedia by defending edits on an article about chocolate, and that is precisely your motivation for requesting the Deletion of the Globcal International article, it is also and attempt to harm me. As a cooperative all the members have rights to individually claim their ground and project their ideas or roles as activists for their own causes. Two of our activists [8] Ref are very engaged in participating in online conferences and organizing them, some of these online events they participate in are viewed by thousands of people. So let's not consider them and the other members of Globcal International that I am not even necessarily overseeing, what is right from wrong, or even consciously examine what is going on here? Globcal International is an independent body headquartered in desk drawer in Belize that operates online as a decentralized autonomous entity, whatever that means to you I am not sure, but it was important enough to me to shore it up by making it an independent subsidiary of Ecology Crossroads which I founded in 1994 in Kentucky so in US jurisdiction it is under my wing, outside the US it is under the management of its independent members. But really the sad part is that you are intending to hurt all of them by taking part of their identity away by having their article deleted simply because I am involved with it and you did not like my edits on Wikipedia. It is all super Wiki-Politics and settling a score with me: it is not mature, manly or civil and I think since I was penalized by a Wikipedia admin, paid the penalty that this matter should not exist. Let's bury the hatchet, withdraw the Deletion Discussion and just avoid each other like good civilians by not getting in each other's way. There are more positive things to do that criticize things that I am involved in just because I choose to be transparent and integral. It is my understanding now since last week's experience that being civil and having an aggressive editing style are not always the best companions. Either is picking fights on technical matters regarding chocolate. Taking away the Globcal article hurts many others more than me, it harms remote indigenous cultures [9]Ref (good reference item if the UN website worked correctly), it is a blow against human rights activists, it will have an impact on biodiversity and climate change; but most of all it harms its members and all the people they serve, it harms their reputation and can make them difficult to find. Without our inspiration or involvement the Rotary World Peace Conference in 2016 [10]Ref may have never occurred if it was not for one of our officers. But really Barry we need to keep our head about this; taking an eye for an eye and another eye and then another is not the right approach to being civil, it is vengeance pure and simple; so I appeal to you to withdraw the deletion request. Please don't make me a victim or target of emotional sentiment or carry this on any further or soon someone may be investigating you, who you are and what you are trying to do with this, just revert the whole thing and it will go away I assure you we, our members and the world will all be better off for it. Or maybe you should be constructive and edit these references here into the Globcal International article to demonstrate that you are a good Wikipedia editor and not someone out for revenge based on an unrelated incident last week. Problemsmith ( talk) 15:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Another wall of text and still a failure to provide decent reliable sources to demonstrate the organization's notability.
"This is not an issue about notability for an article that was very notable in 2009"
The article was as notable in 2009 as it is today. It was tagged in 2011 for failing notability and requiring additional citations [11]. These tags were removed without any improvement to the article by none other than Shamansfriend [12]. Barry Wom ( talk) 16:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Barry Wom, sorry, not sure who Shamansfriend is exactly? It could be any one of several people that were working in our office in Caracas in 2013, when we had an office in Caracas. People were calling me the 'Shaman' around that time after buying Ekobius and establishing an agreement with Indigenous people shortly before then. I did not mount a wall of text to have all the other points disregarded or continue. Here I gave you two notable references about one of our members and a reference about another. Putting a new hatnote on the article perhaps would have been enough to inspire someone to make some new constructive edits, but deleting it based on suspicion of sockpuppetry following a wrong perpetrated by me against you, is what is being discussed from my perspective, and the vindictive nature of these actions. Most of the work performed by international NGOs today goes unnoticed due to the level of risk in places like Honduras and Mexico where people die defending ideas about the environment and their journalism. It is not my job to create a paper or digital trail so that people know everything about what we do or to cite all of our accomplishments. It is my job to establish the fact that we are legally engaged in international tax-exempt Laissez Faire that are beneficial to the public good and promote the well-being of our clients and projects, that is all I do! When I am not doing that I am doing research and editing websites about historical events 250 years ago. I really don't have much more to say regarding your challenges, except that Globcal did not do anything to you, and you would not be here attacking it if it were not for me attacking your reverts. In other words your personal queries are obviously provoked by my actions, they are not coincidental and they are unwarranted, unfair and immoral. Have a good time and be nice, which means don't be awnry or provoke the 7 deadly sins, but always maintain your honor, integrity and stand up for what you believe in! People simply do not believe in what you are doing to me, nor are the actions justifiable. Problemsmith ( talk) 17:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply
"sorry, not sure who Shamansfriend is exactly?"
Hopefully someone will soon be along to jog your memory. Barry Wom ( talk) 08:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
DO NOT DELETE - Here are some references to my previous statements for Barry Wom or another editor to incorporate in the Article. The operation, technique and theory to the whole Facebook diplomacy (article that I authored with the input of Peter James) in itself is noteworthy enough because of its size and reach at that time per our members who were 132 when the article first appeared, it was part of our success in those years and our starting point, until people started shying away, engaging differently with images and anonymizing their accounts. P!NK was a member on Facebook as well as were many other celebrities from 2010 until 2014 when that engagement switched to protected verified profiles using a blue checkmark. Africans with smartphones from Nigeria also put salt in the pudding impersonating others, something that continues today. Refs that verify some of previous statements made in my first reply to the proposed deletion are as follows:
  • Obama and Globcal follow each other on Twitter. 2008 - Present [13] Check it!
  • Comments by David Rockefeller on International Diplomacy School of Ireland [14] Article credits Globcal International for the creation of Facebook Diplomacy several years earlier. I spoke to him once in 2009 but that is nothing I need to prove to you.
  • US Undersecretary of State James Glassman commenting on work performed with Globcal International (apparently and purposefully not stating our name) which launched our Facebook Ambassadors development as a purposeful measure and the creation of the term. [15]
  • Link establishing our connection to Ecology Crossroads starting in 2020 with documentation on file with the KYSOS. [16]
  • There are also 3 other references Links 6, 7 and 8 (above) in the section referred to as a "wall of text" above and emboldened.
Barry may or may not be aware that organizations like Globcal International are non-state actors when working outside the country, sometimes working and living in harm's way as tourists, until or if they are accepted as landed international NGO officials; this entire effort by Barry can potentially endanger lives, based on developed treaties and programs the organization is involved in to protect biodiversity under the Nagoya Protocol and other diplomatic treaties that we work under. It is also considered an unkind, unprovoked, unfriendly, unusual and abusive bad-faith diplomatic measure being taken against our members that are associated with the United Nations, Mali, Colombia, Belgium and the US, who now want to know who Barry is? I have only been able to tell them that I don't know, I also told them there are no neutral mediators that have contacted me on this matter. I did not create the problem that Barry has tasked Globcal with trying to resolve based on my conduct with him, what a nice time we had today. Problemsmith ( talk) 22:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Of the 19 references, 11 are links to Globcal (including Facebook) which are used 15 times of the total usage of 23 times that references are used (i.e. Non-independent sources may not be used to establish notability from Wikipedia:Independent sources). The link to the United Nations page is just registration information similar to company registration (i.e. an indiscriminate source from the same Wikipedia:Independent sources page). The Hanifan article reference is from 1916 & 1920, with the last article 89 years before the foundation was created and does not confirm notability or directly relate to Globcal. The Kioskea article just defines Facebook Ambassador and does not reference Globcal (I just moved the citation to the middle of the sentence so it is next to the related content). The Wikibook "Course on the Foundations of Buddhist Culture" does not exist anymore and should ideally be removed. The Newsweek, NPR and Saudi Gazette references do not provide links to the actual articles which made it harder to see what was going on but reading them none of them mention Globcal. In summary, the page as written does not meet notability requirements and should be deleted. Gusfriend ( talk) 08:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Per Gusfriend unless WP:THREE presented clearly here and most if not all primary sourcing removed from article with WP:STUBIFY if necessary and it probably would be. I've a short span of attention. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 10:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete lack of any source information which is not either from the organization itself, or which is trivial in nature. Does not meet minimum standards of WP:GNG. No indepth, reliable, independent sources means no article. -- Jayron 32 14:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I have had concerns about this page since it was published. Does not meet notability guidelines and, per Barry Wom above, lacks sources to show anything factual to support notability claims. Wikipelli Talk 15:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I see this article is already getting deleted but it does not meet notability guidelines and, per Barry Wom above, lacks sources to show anything factual to support notability claims. I see that there already clear consensous to delete here. Starship SN20 ( talk) 15:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, Per above, the article does not support WP:GNG Alex-h ( talk) 16:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - WP:THREE is just a theory on a talk page, but it is a good guideline. WP:GNG, WP:STUBIFY, WP:MERGE because there is too much WP:COI in the article, Wikipedia articles should show balance, not fluff and pomp. On its own Globcal International is somewhat notable based on facts; it was in the US Courts for a trademark infringement case with the Honorable Order of Kentucky Colonels seeking millions of dollars in damages in 2020 and 2021 until the plaintiff recanted and dismissed all the allegations. It is not nearly as notable as its parent organization on similar issues 20 years ago, making national headlines in the US. 1Tr1BeLi7g8 ( talk) 18:44, 13 February 2022 (UTC)— 1Tr1BeLi7g8 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- Bbb23 ( talk) 19:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
On the face of it, this would obviously appear to be from a new account set up by Mr Wright in a last-ditch attempt to save the article from deletion rather than stubifying or merging. Proper links to the supposed facts mentioned here would disabuse me of this notion. Barry Wom ( talk) 20:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
I am unable to verify any of the supposed 'facts' contained in 1Tr1BeLi7g8's comment. As has been said before, and worth repeating now, just saying there are facts is not good enough. If people have them, why aren't they including them in the article? Wikipelli Talk 20:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
I don't like the article being deleted, I read lots of information and clearly see the consensus here to delete it, merge it or stubify it because of the notability of the references; simply put there are no solid news references that meet the notability guideline. I also found lots of similar articles marked as advertising which this article is not standing for a much longer time, I do not see any difference except User:Barry Wom not liking me. I have no objections to WP:STUBIFY but I am not sure if I am allowed to remove my own edits or do it myself? Guidance please, there is no clarity that Stubify or removing my edits will change anyone's opinion. Problemsmith ( talk) 23:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
I am not sure that removing a number of your edits would encourage people to keep the page. I think that the best thing to do would be to post some references on this cite that can then be examined for including in the page. Gusfriend ( talk) 04:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Agreed @ Problemsmith @ Gusfriend Starship SN20 ( talk) 20:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Problemsmith: "I respectfully deny any and all allegations of sockpuppetry at anytime on Wikipedia"
So it's simply a mere coincidence that new user 1Tr1BeLi7g8 signed up yesterday to comment on the deletion of the Globcal article and to begin drafting a new article on the parent organization, which was also founded by you? I mean, that's literally the only two contributions they've made. Subterfuge really isn't your strong point. Barry Wom ( talk) 09:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Please make this in a sockpuppetry discussion, not in an AFD discussion. T does not belong here @ Barry Wom Starship SN20 ( talk) 20:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. And move Televisa-Univision Inc. back to this title. Sandstein 08:21, 15 February 2022 (UTC) reply

TelevisaUnivision

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

Unnecessary page. Televisa-Univision Inc. is the only topic as Televisa (i.e. " TelevisaUnivision (Mexico)") never changed their name [17]. All these links and moves surged upon the confusion of editors. Maybe Televisa-Univision Inc. needs to be moved back to this page. (CC)  Tbhotch ™ 19:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Dark Descent

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES; found no suitable or reliable sources/reviews to pass WP:NEXIST in a WP:BEFORE and no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator ( talk) 19:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete finding basically nothing. Artw ( talk) 04:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete NO RS this fails WP:SIGCOV Deathlibrarian ( talk) 11:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Black Ox Orkestar. History remains under the redirect if further sources are eventually identified that might establish notability Star Mississippi 03:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Le Petit Théâtre de l'Absolu

Le Petit Théâtre de l'Absolu (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The sources don't seem to seem to support notability. There are two links: one is a self-published website by the co-founder and therefore not a reliable source. The other appears to be a Chicago Tribune article from 2001, but the link does not work. Cannot otherwise confirm notability. Singularity42 ( talk) 19:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Thank you. I don't cite Levine's website, the second reference comes from an academic journal dedicated to puppetry. Both that review and that of the Chicago Tribune attests to their participation in notable theatrical festivals. I located PDFs of both sources via academic library search, and will attempt to update the Chicago Tribute link. I will continue to search for press of the Israel/Palestine tour. Thenewobjective ( talk) 19:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
STRONG DELETE:If you look at the one good reference (not the on with pages no found or that is self published), it says nothing about this. I looked this up. Parts seem to be accurate (Black Ox Orkestar exists) and others don't (outside of Wikipedia, I can not find anything about a puppet theatre that toured through Israel and the West Bank in 2003 founded by European Jewish folk quartet of musicians). I don't know what this is. It could be orginal research, undercited, unnotable, or a hoax. I do not know. Regardless, this clearly does not belong on Wikipedia, and I don't see any way to fix an article that has nothing published on it, and with a subject that does not even seem to exist. I would most definetly vote delete, and look into the other mentions of this on Wikipedia to see who added them to see if this is a mistake orginal reasearch or a intentionally planned hoax. Starship SN20 ( talk) 21:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I don't see any sources in French in Google or GNews, it was likely a promotional page for them before they went away in 2005. Nothing notable at this point almost 20 yrs later. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete At best we have a single article about the troupe from the Chicago Tribune, everything else is either a trivial mention, or information directly from the creators of the troupe itself, which is not independent. I can't see where a single review from a single newspaper is WP:SIGCOV. -- Jayron 32 14:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Black Ox Orkestar, where it is mentioned in relation to its two founders, as an alternative to deletion. I've searched available databases in ProQuest and EBSCOhost and all I'm finding are event listings, not reviews or anything else in-depth on the troupe. The Chicago Tribune source ( ProQuest  419322824) is not about the subject—the troupe is only mentioned in passing. Same for the Puppetry Journal ( ProQuest  1797309)—it's only mentioned in passing and is not reviewed in a depth with which we could write an encyclopedia article without delving into original research. The Gabriel Levine book, written by a founder, is not independent of the subject. Despite a hearty effort, the topic does not have significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. ( ?) czar 03:19, 10 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    I don't see why we should make this a redirect. It never should have been created, it should be deleted. No reason to redirect as harldy anyone has heard of this. Even the creator said that they found it in the Black Ox Orkestar article here. No reason for a useless redirect Starship SN20 ( talk) 13:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    I linked the reason above: WP:ATD-R. Nominators are expected to puruse alternatives to deletion before coming to AfD and WP:Redirects are cheap. The standard on Wikipedia is to WP:Preserve content wherever reasonable and within policy. And re: the user talk conversation you linked, please do not WP:bite newcomers. They are the lifeblood of our editorship and we should be encouraging their good faith contributions, not calling them hoaxes. It is clear that this troupe existed—they just haven't generated enough press to sustain a dedicated article without delving into original research. I suggest retracting your statement to them. czar 03:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Black Ox Orkestar - a harmless and typical redirect, if ever someone is looking for this. Nfitz ( talk) 19:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect as above two comments. Additionally, I favour redirect over deletion because, while this troupe itself doesn't appear to meet notability standards, there's really nothing at all wrong with the content, which someone might want to pull out of the history later to use for a related article on Levine or something else related. -- asilvering ( talk) 05:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sailing at the 1932 Summer Olympics – Snowbird. per consensus. I'm really not sure why we're here. {u|Lugnuts}} you reverted the redirect, only to !vote redirect? Star Mississippi 03:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Hans Riedl

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

There is no evidence of notability. We lack any significant coverge. Searches have shown up no additional sources. Does not even come close to meeting our inclusion criteria for Olympians, which even if met is not a gaurantee of an article, the sports notability criteria make it clear that we need the subject to pass GNG to justify an article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG through lack of significant coverage, and I am not convinced that this is a sufficiently likely search term for a redirect to be appropriate. BilledMammal ( talk) 04:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply
I disagree - the name of any Olympian, medal-winning or not, is a plausible search term. Ingratis ( talk) 04:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply
There are a lot of plausible search terms; every name on this list, for example. However, not all of them are sufficiently plausible for a redirect to be useful, compared to the chance of confusing readers who are searching for similarly non-notable people. BilledMammal ( talk) 05:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Your comparison is not an accurate one. For the rest, it doesn't make much sense, but whatever you are saying doesn't seem to be covered by WP:R#DELETE and WP:ATD-R. For good measure I'll throw in WP:CHEAP (Yes, I know it's an essay, but it's a sensible one) and WP:ATD. Also, WP:R#KEEP, of which para 5 reads: "Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways." I find redirects from articles on non-medalling Olympians useful, and if I do, doubtless other readers will. Ingratis ( talk) 18:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply
I believe it is; can you explain why you disagree. And my position isn't that it won't be useful to individuals searching for the athlete, it is that it will cause issues for people who are not searching for the athlete, such as those searching for Peter Hans Riedl. BilledMammal ( talk) 04:15, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Briefly, I disagree because I see a significant difference between people who have never had articles and this, where there has been an article for years, so I think it desirable and helpful to leave a trail to it, now that there has been a change of wind direction inside the small inward-looking world that is too often Wikipedia. Thank you for clarifying the other point but it still makes no sense to me. I don't see any danger at all that anyone will confuse an Austrian sportsman called Hans born in 1911 with a German local politician in 2009 called Peter Hans, even if they do share a surname. If this were a real danger, however, then redirecting this article to the correct place would remove the confusion, not add to it. I can only repeat the links above, especially WP:ATD. I don't think I can say much more on the subject. Ingratis ( talk) 21:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC) reply
You are proposing a grandfather clause in Wikipedia where because one editor mass created a bunch of sub-stub articles we permanently give this some meaning and precedent. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and the fact that someone bothered creating an article on Wikipedia does not in any way indicate the subject is in any way notable, and should not be used as a major way of how we judge the notability of a subject, or the primary subject associated with a particular name. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC) reply
WP:ATD - there is no good reason here not to have a redirect. For the rest, I don't see it that way - I think Wikipedia should maintain some semblance of consistency - but I'm not prepared to extend this discussion any further, as it's already several times the length of the article. Ingratis ( talk) 00:00, 12 February 2022 (UTC) reply
No, I will add a bit more: this is an aspect of WP:SURPRISE, that if an article has been up for a long time, removing it without trace is baffling and inexplicable, not to mention bloody annoying, to a reader who has previously referred to it. (But who cares about readers so long as the editors are having fun.) Also, while it wouldn't be true to say that Wikipedian notability (as opposed to actual notability) changes with the weather, it does change, and these stubs have only recently been declared non-notable and double-plus-ungood, and your seemingly intense desire to eradicate them down to deleting them even as redirects, when viable redirect targets exist, as here, is unhelpfully revisionist. But WP:ATD is what principally counts. Ingratis ( talk) 04:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Chatura Kau

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

Short film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing of note was found in a BEFORE. DonaldD23 talk to me 18:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that Marcano's death does not meet the significant, sustained coverage and impacts required for an article to exist. Star Mississippi 03:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Death of Miya Marcano

Death of Miya Marcano (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BLP1E. Common occurance. Completely non-notable. scope_creep Talk 01:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 02:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 02:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Significant coverage about the death is available. In this specific case I see the nominator cites WP:BLP1E, it is true that Miya Marcano may not be notable per 1EVENT, but the death is, and in that specific case, Miya Marcano simply redirects to Death of Miya Marcano, as it already does now. The death of Miya Marcano has significant coverage both in the references already on the page and more I can find by searching, and meets WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Garnarblarnar ( talk) 04:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep, yes the article has significant coverage and is totally worthy of inclusion and I am in agreement with those who want to keep this article. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 03:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The underlying event that is basis for this article is completely common. A person goes missing every 90 seconds in the uk, a common occurence, with roughly 0.1% of those murdered, which is about 320-327 people a year. So that is a common occurence. The pattern for families who are in despair, they try and bring meaning into the thing, holding vigils, setup foundations and charity's, memorials and so on. Almost the same pattern. The paper's have a duty to report on it, but it is common crime, a common occurence everywhere on the planet and is completely non-notable. It is generic. A generic article. It fails WP:CRIME. scope_creep Talk 10:36, 2 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep TzarN64 ( talk) 15:37, 3 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For more time for policy-based input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Not every murder is notable. If it was, we'd have 20,000 articles in the US alone every year. This one, sadly, isn't. Black Kite (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not sustained coverage, note all the RS is dated to Sept/Oct 2021 and nothing past that date. WP:NOTNEWS. Deathlibrarian ( talk) 11:09, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as—unfortunately—WP:MILL and a lack of SIGCOV as suggested above. Also noting the paucity of at least one delete !vote. SN54129 13:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - this article has lots of good sources and is keep warranted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.102.255.40 ( talk) 20:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Routine coverage of a tragic event. Newsworthy, but not WP:N. Star Garnet ( talk) 22:44, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I don't see the difference between this article and any other article about a noteworthy disappearance and murder. It was widely reported on and is sourced properly with ample written information. solluxstark ( talk) 23:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Blablubbs ( talk) 20:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Ethereal Art

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

non-notable unreleased NFT nonsense with no coverage. SANTADICAE🎅 18:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Militia (film)

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES; I found only one review (needs two or more reviews/reliable sources in order to be eligible) in Rotten Tomatoes. I also found no suitable or reliable sources/reviews in a WP:BEFORE. The Film Creator ( talk) 16:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

This movie does definitely exist for real, I have watched it. And here are ca. 20 reviews on IMDB: [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grapetonix ( talk • contribs) 16:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete IMDb is not a reliable source, and we need to stop Wikipedia being an IMDb mirror. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    • For the record I am not convinced the Rotten Tomoratoes review would add towards it passing any notability. It literally says "cable drama obviously inspired by better films." It is a 1 sentence review. I do not think that when people created the "2 reviews" guideline they had this level of being reviewed in mind. I am starting to think we should never count reviews directly posted to Rotten Tomatoes toward the requisite number of reviews. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 StarCraft#Novelizations. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

StarCraft (WildStorm comics)

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

This article doesn't have, and never has had, any references. It doesn't appear as though it is notable enough for its own article, and I think it should probably be deleted. It could possibly be merged with StarCraft, or StarCraft (video game), if reliable enough sources were found. ―  Levi_OP Talk 15:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Nagindas Khandwal College of Commerce and Economics

Nagindas Khandwal College of Commerce and Economics (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination )
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The college article contains only one source that too is unreliable by the official website of UGC, some basic info and address. Thus making this article failing notability criteria and WP:GNG Pri2000 ( talk) 15:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Daily Wire#Podcasts and radio. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 ( HAPPY 2022) 15:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Candace (show)

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

I previously opened a WP:PROD and I am still concerned about the notability of this topic. I am not suggesting that Candace Owens or The Daily Wire are not notable, but that this show is not notable as an independent subject and does not WP:INHERIT notability from its host, network, or guests. The current sourcing is very poor in regards to coverage related to the show specifically. Most of the sources are only WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of the show and instead are heavily focused on Candance Owens, The Daily Wire, or Donald Trump. For example, the Forbes article only contains one sentence that mentions the show. Most of the sources don't mention the show at all. For instance, the New York Daily News, Newsweek, CNN, and The Washington Examiner sources all discuss related topics such as Candace Owens, The Daily Wire, and Trump but never even mention a show or podcast let alone provide in depth coverage of the show. Sources like the first and second references from The Hill as well as the Black Enterprise are largely WP:INTERVIEW content, which means that they are primary or not independent of the subject.

The reliability of the current sources is also quite concerning. I would expect to see a few sources that have made it to WP:RSP as "generally reliable" or a few sources that are not on RSP but appear reliable. However, the reliability of The Washington Examiner, WP:NEWSWEEK, and WP:FORBESCON are all in question at RSP and as such likely do not contribute to notability even if they did mention the show. The reliability of OutKick and Black Enterprise have not been evaluated at RSP/RSN as far as I can tell. For OutKick, I can't find anything about an editorial board, mission statement, or even a list of staff and the parent company is simply OutKick Media. The site is at the very least a clearly partisan source and the author of this particular article is included on the site's list of "contributors", which is often mentioned at WP:RSP as potentially unreliable ( WP:CONTRIBUTOR is relevant). The Black Enterprise source at least has an about page and a management staff page, however, I don't see "Cedric 'Big Ced' Thornton" listed as a member of the staff. The New York Daily News is at least listed at RSP as "generally reliable", but even that entry notes that editors "question the accuracy of its tabloid-style headlines" and the title in question is "Cardi B and Candace Owens threaten to sue each other in epic Twitter battle".

I also believe that WP:NOTNEWS is extremely pertinent. When looking for sources I find quite a few news stories about Trump and his stance on the covid-19 vaccine rather than discussion about what the show is, common topics of the show, how long an average episode is, how many episodes are there, what platforms is it available on, what are similar or related shows, or a review of the show as a whole. While reading the current sources it's unclear whether this is a podcast, radio show, television show, or only a youtube channel. Based on my searches for additional sources it appears that Trump's views on vaccines is more notable than this show. The whole interaction between Candace and Cardi B sounds like WP:NOTGOSSIP. I also think WP:ROUTINE is relevant considering the few sources that do discuss the show are mostly just announcing that the start of the show and Candace's move to The Daily Wire.

There was a merge discussion that ended in no consensus with very little evidence suggesting that the show is independently notable. I believe this topic is more suited for a section at both the articles for Candace Owens and The Daily Wire rather than an independent page. There has also been some discussion on the talk page regarding whether the content could be merged to Candace Owens or The Daily Wire. If any of the content is preserved I would suggest merging it to Candace Owens because the focus of the article is supposed to be on a show that she hosts and, given the name of the show, couldn't exist without her as the host. Whereas, The Daily Wire is the production company and most of the time news coverage of shows like this barely mention the production company, but The Daily Wire probably should have an entry for the show as well. TipsyElephant ( talk) 14:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply



The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Child in the Night

Child in the Night (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't find evidence that this meets WP:NFILM. No reviews or later critical commentary located on a search of Google, GBooks, Newspapers.com. PROD tag removed without improvement or comment. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 14:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • The review on RT is from "blu-ray.com", which as a website has none of the hallmarks of reliability, including an editorial policy or staff page. There's also no indication that the author, Brian Orndorf, is a "nationally-recognized critic" as required by WP:NFILM. Although he has "Tomatometer" status on RT, that in itself is not indicative of national recognition - hundreds of critics have this status, and it's granted on application. If he were a Top Critic, that would be different - that's a rigorously screened subset of Tomatometer critics, and only critics who are "well-established, influential, and prolific" are designated "Top Critics", so I would happily accept that as indicators of national recognition. But simply existing as a listed critic is insufficient. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The one review from Rotten Tomatoes does not add towards the multiple reviews required. We need reliable sources. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I found just enough coverage to justify a keep for this film. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per reviews added to article by Reader of the Pack. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep, per above.--Surv1v4l1st ╠ Talk║ Contribs╣ 23:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

St. Vincent Pallotti School

St. Vincent Pallotti School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school located in India. Article is unsourced, PROD removed by editor. RickinBaltimore ( talk) 13:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete Non Notable. Sources used are directories and sites for school admission, not WP:RS. Captain Jack Sparrow ( talk) 18:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete all the references in the article are either primary or trivial school directory listings. There's a couple of news articles out there that name drop the school, for instance one about the principal not admitting a kid with a pony tail, but none of them are any better then what's in the article. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 07:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Not notable, no real information about the school. ArdynOfTheAncients 8:57, 10 February 2022
  • Delete: Fails WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. - Hatchens ( talk) 13:05, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. While we're at nearly a numerical alignment in !votes, the deletes have more policy behind them that are not numbers and search engine results. No one is doubting that mentions exist, however consensus is that the sourcing present and available does not meet the requirements for CORPDEPTH. Star Mississippi 03:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC) reply

BeWelcome

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

Not notable per WP:NORG, and it doesn't meet WP:GNG. Each of the references is a trivial mention (one sentence or less out of a large article) except for one article in The Guardian, which may or may not be a puff piece. I looked for more sources before filing, and outside of some listicles where it's mentioned briefly among a dozen or so competitors, there's nothing out there. AlexEng( TALK) 10:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Oppose Per WP:SNG -- Geysirhead ( talk) 12:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Please clarify which part of the section WP:SNG you are basing your opposition on. The applicable SNG for BeWelcome is WP:NORG as I mentioned above. The subject does not meet WP:ORGCRIT, as I explained in the nomination. AlexEng( TALK) 17:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply
WP:EDITCON almost 15 years of existence and multiple languages, e.g., Talk:BeWelcome#Deletion nomination-- Geysirhead ( talk) 20:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Please clarify further. You linked an unrelated page, which has nothing to do with WP:SNG and nothing to do with our deletion policy. Are you implying that old articles cannot be deleted? I am struggling to find another interpretation of what you wrote. The 2008 AFD had at least two WP:COI editors participating, and it did not reveal anything more than the one non-trivial mention (The Guardian piece I mentioned above), which may or may not be promotional. This fails today's WP:NORG, regardless of what the 2008 AfD says. To this day, the aforementioned Guardian piece is still the only non-trivial reference. One would think that after 14 years, another piece would appear for a notable organization, but alas... AlexEng( TALK) 02:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The Guardian and about 100 papers on Google Scholar-- Geysirhead ( talk) 08:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Most of which appear to come no where near passing WP:SCHOLARSHIP for this topic. Unbh ( talk) 16:43, 1 February 2022 (UTC) reply
WP:CIR Systematic review is required for such statements.-- Geysirhead ( talk) 13:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Geysirhead:Please remember to comment on content, not contributors. I reviewed the results for "BeWelcome" on Google Scholar, and I did not find any sources that could be used for notability. Multiple papers came up because of typos, e.g. ... Society of Clinical Pathologists that cooperative sessions would bewelcome at their meetings to discuss medical electronics problems. The rest appear to be trivial mentions or otherwise user-generated content. For example, this paper discusses data provided by BeWelcome at some length, but it is a single author submitting to arXiv. There is no peer review process. This is a WP:PRIMARY source and WP:UGC for the purposes of WP:NORG, and these types of sources cannot be used to establish notability. If you manage to find something useful, please mention it here. AlexEng( TALK) 03:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC) reply
WP:CIR More careful and neutral search is required to find (Ossewaarde&Reijers,2017) and other peer-reviewed papers.-- Geysirhead ( talk) 20:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC) reply
I've addressed your repeated use of WP:CIR in a response to your message on my talk page. Here, I will address your citation of the Ossewaarde & Reijers paper. This is an anthropological research paper discussing in substance the concept of a digital commons. The authors use Wikipedia, Linux, Airbnb, Couchsurfing, and BeWelcome as examples of digital commons while discussing the illusion thereof. It's an interesting article, for sure, but it's not germane to this discussion of the notability of BeWelcome.org. If you manage to find some relevant papers, I'd be happy to read them as well. Thanks. AlexEng( TALK) 04:40, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply
This argumentation for deletion of Bewelcome sounds like What Have The Romans Ever Done For Us? by Monty Python. No source will ever be enough to convince. WP:Listen -- Geysirhead ( talk) 14:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom, trivial coverage only Unbh ( talk) 17:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply

keep. It is currently the second biggest Hospitality Exchange network and the biggest non-commercial one. Arved ( talk) 13:40, 2 February 2022 (UTC) reply

That claim is unsourced, and that points reinforces the deletion argument - there are not sufficient sources to justify this article. Unbh ( talk) 12:04, 3 February 2022 (UTC) reply
That logically false claim that an unsourced argument reinforces the deletion argument weakens the deletion argument.-- Geysirhead ( talk) 22:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC) reply
It's not logically false. It's pointing out that even such a straight forward claim can't aapparently be reliably sourced. That clearly undermines claims of notability. Unbh ( talk) 02:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Well I have been checking the Users numbers on all networks mentioned on Homestay#Services. CS: (12 or 14 Million https://about.couchsurfing.com/about/about-us/), BW 164.902( https://www.bewelcome.org/about/statistics), WS 166,424 https://www.warmshowers.org/country_count, TR 70.319 https://www.trustroots.org/statistics Servat (15k) , Pasaporto Servo (2293). So yes, since the user cleanup End of January WS is a little bigger than BW. But these numbers are so close to each other that they will soon change places again and we shouldn't delete the smaller one. Arved ( talk) 08:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Respectfully, this is just WP:BIGNUMBER and WP:NUMBER1, both of which are arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Regardless of how many users a site claims that it has (active or otherwise), notability is established by significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources. If there is no such coverage, then the subject generally does not require a standalone article. Some portions of it may be covered in a larger article, such as hospitality exchange. AlexEng( TALK) 09:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete There is no notable coverage cited, only very brief passsing mentions and primary sources. It doesn't meet the criteria for a wikipedia article CT55555 ( talk) 01:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC) reply
@ CT55555: read WP:REPEAT-- Geysirhead ( talk) 20:52, 3 February 2022 (UTC) reply
WP:REPEAT is about the same editor repeatedly making the same argument in a deletion discussion, not about other editors agreeing with or supporting that argument. Unbh ( talk) 02:39, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Subaculture Keep There are dozens on peer reviewed articles about BeWelcome;

  • - Tagiew, Rustam. "Bewelcome. org--a non-profit democratic hospex service set up for growth." arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.8700 (2014).
  • - Delhibabu, R., Ignatov, D., & Tagiew, R. Hospitality Exchange Services as a Source of Spatial and Social Data?.
  • - Schöpf, S. (2015). The commodification of the couch: A dialectical analysis of hospitality exchange platforms. tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 13(1), 11-34.
  • - O'Regan, M. (2017). Doing Things Differently: Opening Cracks in the Tourism System. Tvergastein: Interdisciplinary Journal of the Environment, (9), 24-33.

BeWelcome is also scanned by Alexa ( https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/bewelcome.org) Google Trends- https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=%2Fm%2F04gvxvf Articles - https://www.inputmag.com/features/rise-and-ruin-of-couchsurfing, https://www.bangkokpost.com/travel/275196/all-packed-up-and-many-places-to-go — Preceding unsigned comment added by ( talk • contribs) 10:30, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply

every website is scanned by Google and Alexa - that's got nothing to do with it. More trivial mentions in poor quality sources. Unbh ( talk) 11:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply


Subaculture If we delete on this basis, it would also mean the deletion of Warmshowers, trustroots and [ Hospitality Club, Servas etc etc. Is the biggest brand, the most notable brand?

Those are almost equally poor articles, and there's probably an AfD to be had on Trustroots if not the other two. Unbh ( talk) 11:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Subaculture Basically, this is one of the better sourced articles in the Category:Hospitality services. If we DELETE, we might as well as delete all articles under the series. BeWelcome is one of the few hospex sites with a large increase in numbers (4,000 members in 2008 to 180,000) in recent years and has been covered primarily in local European newspaper (Spanish, German etc). Just because of these articles are old sources, does not make them any less notable. — Preceding undated comment added 11:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Then provide the sources, rather than just saying they exist. User numbers are not relevant - per WP:BIGNUMBER as mentioned above — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unbh ( talk • contribs) 12:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Subaculture - Additional Sources /mentions

all three are trivial mentions in articles about the sharing economy in general. It's not enough for WP:NORG Unbh ( talk) 12:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply

They point to/ indicates the existence of multiple significant independent sources. Although yes, the mentions might contextualise larger topics. However, it indicates WP:NORG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subaculture ( talk • contribs) 12:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Subaculture The main sense of WP:NORG rules are related to (self-)promotion of small companies at Wikipedia. The sense is not to remove articles about valid organizations. BeWelcome has existed since 2007. The WP:NORG rules should be used as an excuse to remove articles about small organizations. Other sources (German national papers/ reliable sources): 

— Preceding 
unsigned comment added by 
Subaculture (
talk • 
contribs) 12:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
reply

Subaculture I will be adding some of these reliable sources to the entry over the coming week.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 12:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Comment, those are awful sources, even though the sites look good at first sight. (1) The one at Die Welt is by far the best, discussing over the course of several sentences how small BeWelcome is, compared to other such offerings. (2) Might be decent but it's a book I don't have; (3) Although I appreciate that WP can accept foreign-language sources, since BeWelcome claims to be globally-relevant, one wonders why it's necessary to resort to an Arabic-language version of a German publication to find something about it? (4) Mitteldeutschezeitung is a passing reference; (5) Netzwelt lists 35 other sites but doesn't even mention BeWelcome (as of today 7th Feb); (6) Stern is a single mention in passing. grouped together with another similar site; (7) Freie Honnefer is currently saying nothing except "Kleine Pause" which doesn't give much confidence in its solidity as a source. Based on that lot, I'm teetering on a delete here. I would not recommend including any of those (except possibly the book, if it's good) in the current article, as none contribute to the notability of BeWelcome, and only the first says anything meaningful whatsoever. Elemimele ( talk) 16:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Comment This is the problem with nearly all the references . They're passing mentions in bigger pieces about the sharing economy, and particularly Couchsurfing.com. It's mentoned as an aside, or briefly in listicles. Unbh ( talk) 05:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply


peterburk Keep Another article about hospitality exchange, which mentions the open-source nature of BeWelcome and localised Russian translation;

  • - Клинкова, Татьяна. "Путешествие без расходов: как пожить бесплатно в другой стране." https://sgpress.ru/news/331199 (2022).

Thank you editors for attempting to keep Wikipedia safe from misinformation and bias; those are worthy causes for moderators to be involved in! As for the BeWelcome community, however, the zeal for clearing out may adversely affect our current reputations of mutual support and encouragement. Under WP:TRIFECTA "Remain neutral", "Don't be a jerk", "Ignore all rules", we should focus on unity, rather than dividing ourselves about definitions (e.g. the meaning of "notable", or number of users: BeWelcome stats, 132,255 Wikipedians). Therefore this conversation would be better if we focus upon what is best for the open-source community together. Should any of the editors prefer to debate using a video call, there are regular online activities ( 5 upcoming) and 28 face-to-face gatherings to meet other BeWelcome members where all are welcome, especially newcomers.

This Wikipedia page for BeWelcome has sufficient internal and external links, with only 2 degrees of separation from Wikipedia itself. It is not a widowed or orphaned page, therefore deletion seems excessive in this case. Rather, I propose that the WP:DP suggestion " for lack of verifiability" is appropriate.
Comment This seems an unusual and very detailed contribution from a 5 edit sleeper account... Unbh ( talk) 06:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • I commented above, but having considered the issue, I'm going to plump for Delete: the business-model is notable, but all the references appear to be talking about the business model, not BeWelcome specifically, and therefore confirm the idea that we're good to have an article on the business model, but don't currently need one on BeWelcome. If, in future, it suddenly generates a flurry of independent, in-depth news coverage, things may change. We're an encyclopaedia, not a business-listing. Elemimele ( talk) 13:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I looked at all of the references that I could access and the vast majority were just name-checks - listing Bewelcome in a list of sharing services, but nothing really about the service, as in the NY Times piece which says only: "Private rentals through Airbnb have long been in the mainstream, and hospitality exchange sites like Couchsurfing and BeWelcome are thriving". The only one with more than that was the NYT piece [18] but on its own it doesn't rise to the level of NOTABILITY. I did a cursory web search, and also searched in Ebsco. In the former I found Bewelcome's own sites and a few mentions in travel web sites (pretty informal, not RS), and in the latter I only found Bewelcome's own press releases. I just don't see enough here, unless I overlooked something major. I'm willing to look at other sources if they are offered. Lamona ( talk) 04:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Elemimele: "business model" It is a non-profit communication and reputation plattform connecting people worldwide, a hospitality exchange service (hospex). It is not a business. The first really successfull hospex was HospitalityClub.org. But, for-profit Couchsurfing.com somehow became a synonym for hospitality exchange and makes money out of people's strange need to host people for free. The guests pay 50 bucks and safe money on hotels, because some people even pay to host them for free. Is it altruism, loneliness, whatever. If somebody talks about websites like Bewelcome, they say "Couchsurfing", because Bewelcome is very similar in its functionality to Couchsurfing.com. The special thing about Bewelcome is its non-profitness, which is expressed in a couple sentences. Together with Warmshowers.org, they are the biggest non-profit HopPex websites and provide data for research. The specialty about Warmshowers.org is not only non-profitness, but also the scope on cycle touring. That is why it appears more often. @ Lamona: "also searched in Ebsco" Ebsco does not find anything that Google misses. In addition to already mentioned papers:
  • Santos, Anderson. Citizens of the world: An autoethnography of couchsurfing and uncertainty reduction theory. Liberty University, 2014.
  • Лисеенко, А. А., & Ким, Т. М. (2017). Каучсёрфинг-альтернативный способ экономного путешествия по миру. In Исследование различных направлений современной науки (pp. 51-55).
  • Stoltenberg, Luise M. Authentizität im peer-to-peer Wohntourismus–Eine Untersuchung der Onlineplattformen Airbnb und Couchsurfing auf Grundlage einer Soziologie des Wohnens. Diss. Staats-und Universitätsbibliothek Hamburg Carl von Ossietzky, 2020.
  • Ossewaarde, Marinus, and Wessel Reijers. "The illusion of the digital commons:‘False consciousness’ in online alternative economies." Organization 24.5 (2017): 609-628.

-- Geysirhead ( talk) 23:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. I'm assuming all the sources are reliable and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization - but there's more requirements than that for establishing notability. 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. Not a single reference either mentioned above or in the article meet the criteria, most are name-checks which confirm the existence of the organization and nothing more. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing ++ 18:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Keepstrike repeated !vote At least, this peer-reviewed paper [19] provides in-depth analysis of data on and of Bewelcome.-- Geysirhead ( talk) 10:04, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The content This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. I'm assuming all the sources are reliable and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization - but there's more requirements than that for establishing ... is brazenly copy-pasted into multiple discussions. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trustroots, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Harvin, and so on.-- Geysirhead ( talk) 17:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Perhaps you should take a look at WP:BLUDGEON? For anyone interested, Geysirhead tried it on at my Talk page first. Seems to not like other editors !voting to delete this article and appears to not like my posting largely the same message (a template message?) about why articles fail NCORP. Textbook ad hominen. HighKing ++ 17:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Well that's just not true now is it? You can download a PDF of the paper from here. The paper claims an objective of "determining the factors influencing its growth" and the paper itself analyses Google search volumes and "conversions" between three different organizations including BeWelcome. Section V is entitled "Insights for BW" and again is entirely focused on providing an interpretation on Google search data and a data set of 68,320 profile entries provided to the researchers by the topic company. Its "insights" show, for example, that over 75% of signed-up "customers" have an email from one of Google, Microsoft or Yahoo and that 41.7% of customers indicated to be female and that nearly 5,000 customers never logged in after signing up (but doesn't determine why). In summary, this paper is an analysis of the companies website traffic and messaging. All very interesting. But two points - the first is that even if you are inclined to accept this reference as meeting NCORP criteria for establishing notability, NCORP requires "multiple" references that each meet the criteria so on its own it isn't enough. The second and most important is that it is misleading to say this is an in-depth analysis of BeWelcome. It isn't, at least for meeting WP:CORPDEPTH criteria because it is an analysis of website traffic primarily based on data provided by the topic organization itself. HighKing ++ 17:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Good faith reestablished! Thank you for the done work of reading! Minor correction: "website traffic primarily based on data provided by the topic organization itself" -> and secondary Google's data. I could not find WP:CORPDEPTH excluding peer-reviewed papers. Peer-reviewed papers by non-anonymous authors can based on anything, even on secret data from from hell. Anyway, together with the Gardian article, it satisfies "multiple". Thumbs up, you will surely win next time. Seriously, I am happy.-- Geysirhead ( talk) 20:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply
It seems you're having trouble understanding what is being said. CORPDEPTH requires deep or significant coverage which makes it possible to write more than a brief, incomplete stub about the topic organization. If the "peer reviewed" study was useful, then the useful information would appear in the article. Not only does the reference not appear, but I cannot see any possible useful in-depth information that could be included. As to the Guardian pieces, they clearly fail NCORP. The first is a brief mention, fails CORPDEPTH, plus relies on information from a "host" who is affiliated with the topic company. The second is a mention-in-passing towards the end of the article, fails CORPDEPTH. HighKing ++ 20:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

DAV Public School, Mahuda

DAV Public School, Mahuda (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP The Banner  talk 12:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by nom after sources found by DanCherek (non-admin closure) Onel5969 TT me 17:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Body Offering (novel)

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

While the Hindu article is a nice review of the book, could not find any others. Redirected to author, but ip insists on recreating the page. Not adverse to rescinding nom if someone finds more reviews. Onel5969 TT me 12:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Yout

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

Hoax article per talk page Dronebogus ( talk) 10:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 12:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete If you look at WP:NOT, it will tell you that this online encyclopedia is not a place to create hoaxes, even for articles should not be made that way. If one were to create a article, he or she would have to make sure to not place any hoaxes as it is considered a violation. -- Vaco98 ( talk) 17:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, the references to Norse and the Edda are meaningless as Finland was not a Norse country. Good catch. If you want a laugh, look at the very first version of the page. Geschichte ( talk) 12:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and send to WP:HOAXLIST as the article has existed since 23 August 2007, but was turned into this hoax bull on 11 November 2012 wizzito | say hello! 22:29, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn. ✗ plicit 12:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Option consommateurs

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

there do not appear to be any third party sources DGG ( talk ) 10:48, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Invalid nomination. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion is thataway. Stifle ( talk) 14:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

George Traut Austin

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

While I can somewhat understand having redirects to wiktionary (as dicdefs are out of scope, but can be useful for jargon), why would we redirect for biographies? Either a person is notable, and should have an article here; or they aren't notable, but then we shouldn't outsource to a different site with different standards. This seems like a backdoor mechanism to have biographies of people included without having to care about our policies. It also obscures what would otherwise be redlinks iff the person is notable. Fram ( talk) 10:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Also nominated for the same reason are all other similar pages:

  • Venue innapropriate - All of these pages are redirects ( soft redirects). Thus, the proper venue is redirects for discussion. That aside, you seem to be taking an issue with Template:Wikispecies redirect, for which the proper venue would be Templates for discussion. However, a discussion there regarding it quite a while back did not yield any fruit. Thus, I would suggest a wider community venue for the matter if desired. —  Godsy ( TALK CONT) 11:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    • No, this is not about the template, which seems more logically intended to be for species (just like the Wikt redirect are for words, not for lexicographers). The discussion you link to was from 2017, before any of the above redirects even existed. Fram ( talk) 11:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
      • @ Fram: I created the template, and that was not its intention. That aside, you did not address my main point. These are redirects. Not articles. Thus, this is clearly the wrong venue. —  Godsy ( TALK CONT) 11:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
        • No, the intention of the template was "This template is only for entries that currently exist on Wikispecies and which, due to previous re-creations, are likely to be re-created in unencyclopedic form. Do not place it on every possible title." None of the above entries seem to match that intention though. Fram ( talk) 11:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
          • Ostensibly, sure (that was copied from a guidance page years ago; e.g. documentation often lacks and falls out of date). Happy to explain the theory and reasoning behing these (and the template; along with a note on the nature and history of the template), in a proper venue. —  Godsy ( TALK CONT) 11:39, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
This does seem to be a RfD topic and not an AfD. That said, I agree with nom. Redirects like this should be pointed to articles on en.wiki. If there is no suitable article because someone is non-notable (not even in a list or related article) then we should not have that redirect pointing to another site. Gonnym ( talk) 11:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Creator of Dugdale's page here; he was on Special:WantedPages (or a similar page) in 2019, so I decided to create a soft redirect to Wikispecies rather than create a full article since I didn't know enough about him or his notability. To the nominator's point, though, I think that if soft redirects are inclusion-worthy for dicdefs that can be referenced throughout enwiki's pages, I think soft redirects to sister projects, which are not "other/different sites" pace nom and Gonnym, should be easily generalizable, especially if the biography is that of a specialist like Dugdale; biologists interested in learning more species by Dugdale can click on his link and be duly redirected, to give a use case. So, ultimately keep in general, though I haven't clicked on any specific nominees to verify individual usability. –  John M Wolfson ( talk •  contribs) 14:13, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gameplay. ✗ plicit 12:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Player (game)

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

I stumbled upon this after from ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Contestant. At first, I thought about proposing a merger to much better Gamer, but the sourced content is just a common-sense definition for the sentence that "most games require players" (really? and most? Well, I guess there are zero player games but sigh). There is also player (sport) that I redirected to Athlete. In summary, this article seems like a poor quality, essentially unreferenced stub fork of gamer and should redirect there. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If users believe a redirect to Contest, where the term is not mentioned, is worthwhile, they are free to create one. ✗ plicit 12:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Contestant

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

Dictionary definition. Mostly just gives examples of competitions. Also, completely unreferenced. ― Jochem van Hees ( talk) 09:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 12:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Mümtaz Turhan Social Sciences High School of Istanbul

Mümtaz Turhan Social Sciences High School of Istanbul (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article has been un-referenced since at least 2015, I couldn't find anything in a WP:BEFORE when I looked except a few trivial name drops in a couple of blogs, and high schools are not inherently notable. So I'm nominated this article for deletion. That said, I don't speak Turkish. So there could be references out there that I just missed due to not speaking the language. Adamant1 ( talk) 09:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 12:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

E.C.A. Elginkan Anadolu Lisesi

E.C.A. Elginkan Anadolu Lisesi (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article has been un-referenced since at least 2011, I couldn't find anything in a WP:BEFORE that works for notability, and high schools are not inherently notable. So I'm nominating this for deletion on the grounds that it fails WP:GNG and/or WP:NORG. Adamant1 ( talk) 08:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although numbers are similar on both sides, the keep arguments get less weight because we have "keep because she is notable", a misunderstanding of the mainly British usage of Hon Sec in a society, and zero weight for "keep because such and such a person created the article". Late calls to merge/redirect don't have much support, but as usual, anyone can request a WP:REFUND without reference to me if they propose to merge what little content is there. Stifle ( talk) 14:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Netta Ivory

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

Fails WP:GNG. Clarityfiend ( talk) 08:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • This is not exactly accurate - as best I could piece it together, in 1902 she co-founded the Scotland branch of the English organization, based in Edinburgh. In about 1905, she and her sister engineered the founding of a satelite Scottish branch in Aberdeen, and then in 1911, they reconfigured the Scottish branches into a new Scottish Society, still affiliated with the English organization but now within its own national structure, with the Edinburgh (formerly Scotland) branch leadership apparently becoming the overall national leadership. This is what eventually became the fully-independent OneKind, which chooses to trace its history to the 1911 reconfiguration engineered by the Ivorys. Thus, in a very real sense, she did 'co-found the organization' if one means OneKind. I still don't think that is enough to make her notable (founding what would eventually become a notable non-profit is not itself an independent notability-confering act, in my opinion), but what she did was more consequential than 'just founding a branch'. Agricolae ( talk) 01:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: I think she is notable as per WP:Notability, but still a weak keep is what I suggest. Itcouldbepossible Talk 15:38, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Perhaps you could be more specific - On what basis does she satisfy WP:Notablity? Agricolae ( talk) 16:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Leaning keep. Subject was respected enough in her field to be named honorary secretary of the organization in her eighties. BD2412 T 16:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    • That's obscene, how many tens of thousands of organizations are there that recognize their own members in all sorts of ways? That's not how notability is determined on Wikipedia. The source [25] is the barest possible passing mention. OneKind has has many leaders and honorees in its history, and they can be discussed in that article. Reywas92 Talk 17:39, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    • This is not an honor - in calling her 'honorary secretary' it is just reflecting that her role as secretary is not a formal one (for example, it is not a defined role in the society's charter). Agricolae ( talk) 19:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
      • No, "Honorary" just means "unpaid", ie a voluntary post, with no implication of it not being a formal post in the organisation's constitution. It distinguishes a volunteer, one of the leaders of the organisation, from a paid employee in the organisation's office. Pam D 08:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply
        • The point is the same - the title 'honorary secretary' is not an awarded honour. Agricolae ( talk) 16:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply
          • I'm aware of that, but it is one reported in the news coverage of the organization. BD2412 T 00:13, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
            • It is not reported in the news coverage of the organization that this was an honour. The cited coverage, after reporting the content of a press release from the organization, adds the sentence: "Netta Ivory is honorary secretary" simply parroting her own typical style of signature, as "Netta Ivory, Hon. Sec." That is no basis for notability. Agricolae ( talk) 02:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: urging some caution on the delete front: I can find more passing mention for her in historical newspapers than I've been able to find for many people from a similar time frame who have been saved at AfD by people with better historical newspaper-fu than me, so I strongly suspect there is more about her than I've been able to turn up. Also, her unmarried name is Ivory - I have no idea if she married or not, but if she did, she will almost certainly have changed her last name, complicating the search. I found several passing mentions in The Gentlewoman and Modern Life, enough to suggest to me that she would be notable by present-day standards, and she frequently turns up in hits in The Scotsman in the 1930s. -- asilvering ( talk) 18:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    Of course, after I say that I turn up a classified ad put out by her sister after her death that confirms that she did not change her name and probably did not marry; I've clarified her name in the article. Maybe someone else can do more. -- asilvering ( talk) 18:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    Most of the examples I am seeing are just the same single press release repeated in multiple papers. Agricolae ( talk) 19:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    That's my memory of the Scotsman coverage I found, but not the Gentlewoman and Modern Life stuff. But the latter is certainly not enough for a keep vote. To rephrase my point: I'm certain there are more sources I haven't found, but I'm not certain those sources would push her into a WP:GNG pass. With the sources we have so far she doesn't even look borderline. -- asilvering ( talk) 21:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. While others may argue about WP notability guidelines, I see that SlimVirgin created the article. That's sufficient validation for me. – S. Rich ( talk) 18:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    This is among the most worthless arguments I've ever seen at AFD. SlimVirgin wrote many admirable articles, but other creations I see lacking in notability include Nicolas Atwood (which could be merged with his website Bite Back), Claire Starozinski (sourced to a self-published book on bullfighting; could be merged with her organization Anti-Corrida Alliance), David Leppard, Jack Fischel (a basic resume, unclear if he meets WP:NPROF), André Tylee, Susan Finsen, Alexis Shotwell, Stanisław Kłodziński, Paul Lawrence Rose (zero independent sources), Gerry Mackie (just one independent source, a book review), and Angus Taylor (philosopher) (zero independent sources, no claim to pass NPROF). Not saying I'd AFD all these, but I'm sure the closing admin is smart enough to disregard a vote that does not bother to address the article itself. Reywas92 Talk 20:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
I'll admit I was floored by that comment too. The reason why most others focus on WP notability guidelines is because that is the deciding factor, not because you like someone who wrote the article. KoA ( talk) 02:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete 'Hon. Sec. of the Scottish Anti-Vivisection Society' is not a "well-known and significant award or honor" (WP:BIO) - it was a position that she seems to have occupied from the time the group was founded - in 1905 she was hon. secretary, her sister was hon. treasurer. Though the article makes it sound like a local branch officer was honored by the national organization, there is no distinction between the two - she was Hon. Sec. of the Scottish branch (located in Edinburgh), one of 38 Branches of the England-based society, and continued in that role when the Scottish branch became the semi-autonomous Scottish Society under the same leadership. And no, being secretary of such a society is insufficient, in and of itself, for notability. None of the sources give her more than passing mention: 1. is non-WP:RS and entirely non-selective (being dead is the sole criteria for inclusion); 2: simply has a one-sentence reference to the society that names her and Coleridge as founders (she isn't even subject of the sentence); 3. is reporting on a press release that she put out, and at the end mirrors her typical signature, 'Netta Ivory, Hon. Sec.', by stating that she is honorary secretary; 4. is basically the newsletter of the England-based organization reporting that she attended their national meeting, placing her in societal context as daughter of Lord Ivory, and telling us that she "favoured Brown with a white hat". Further searches turn up nothing both independent of the society and more substantial than a single sentence that she was a co-founder. That is not notability, not even close, no matter who created the page. Agricolae ( talk) 19:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I've been poking around on this one for a bit without commenting so far, but Agricolae summed it up better that I could. She only has two claims in the article: 1. Co-founder of a local branch society in Edinburgh, 2. getting the honorary secretary recognition. Neither really rise to any particular BLP notability. Stubs usually have key claims to fame that stick more than those, and as Agricolae mentioned, the other mentions are also just passing mention. KoA ( talk) 02:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    • At the risk of beating a dead horse: "getting the honorary secretary recognition" (emphasis added). Anyone who has been a member of a small organization knows that someone can be placed on a slate of officers, even for many years, for all kinds of reasons - they are good at that particular administrative skill/it is similar to what they do in professional life; not good at it, but everyone too polite/willing to 'go along to get along' to try to replace them; nobody else is willing to take it on; sheer inertia - let's just reappoint whoever has it now; cliques; etc. No notability-conferring 'recognition' can be implied from the fact that she held such a position. Agricolae ( talk) 15:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Yeah, it should be clear from what I'm mentioning, but I'll also making it doubly clear just in case that I agree with you that this isn't wiki-notability recognition, but more of a passing mention recognition. A title like that generally amounts to WP:PUFFERY if anyone actually tries to use it. KoA ( talk) 21:29, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with the page for the organization: OneKind. That organization's site confirms that the Ivory sisters were founders [26]. This can be confirmed with the independent sources on this page. Lamona ( talk) 04:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • REdirect to organisation. I do not believe that Scottish Anti-Vivisection Society will have had a large membership in her time, meaning that she was still NN when she died. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Peterkingiron, I'm not sure how the size of the organization affects her notability - can you explain your thinking? Also, do you think her role should or should not be added to the organization page? Thanks. Lamona ( talk) 20:35, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
My own opinion on this: If we go by WP:GNG, only independent coverage matters. However, there are all of those guidelines based on who 'can be presumed to be notable', to which RfD participants often add their own rules of thumb. Here we have seen argued that 'being named hon. sec. of a national-level organization makes her notable', but if that type of argument is to carry any weight at all, it must take into account the difference between being secretay of the Royal Scottish Geographical Society versus the Scottish Society for the Growing of Unusually-Shaped Vegetables. Size really does matter if one is making this kind of argument for notability. As to her incusion in the OneKind article, their page does include her in two of about 50 entries in their timeline, the first for the 1911 founding simply referring to 'the Ivory sisters', and the second reporting her death in 1949, but she is in no sense featured in their history to the level where it would be proportional to mention - plus we generally determine whether something is noteworthy based on coverage from outside the organization rather than their inherently-biased view, and there doesn't seem to be anyone outside the organization who cares (the only source we have isn't even talking about the same 'foundation', focussing on the founding of the Scottish branch rather than the subsequent founding fo the Scottish Society claimed as origin by the organization). And as if that wasn't enough to be getting on with, our OneKind article currently credits the Duchess of Hamilton with being the founder, apparently based on a BBC interview with her daughter-in-law. Agricolae ( talk) 01:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 2004 United States House of Representatives elections in New York. Stifle ( talk) 14:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Samara Barend

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

This individual was a political candidate back in 2004, and received the usual coverage that all political candidates receive. She does not seem to have received any significant coverage before or since then, meaning she fails WP:BLP1E. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 22:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply

As to the campaign, in addition to the coverage during the campaign, the Barend/Kuhl campaign was covered years after the 2004 campaign in two places: David Mark's 2007 book Going Dirty: The Art of Negative Campaigning, [6] and Tanya Melich's article in Heidi Hartmann's 2014 2005 edited book Gendering Politics and Policy. [7] DaffodilOcean ( talk) 17:02, 23 January 2022 (UTC) reply
I am changing to keep. The coverage of her 2004 campaign extends three years (David Mark's book) and ten years (The Melich article) after the campaign which is past standard campaign coverage. In addition she is recognized for her work in the period since the campaign. DaffodilOcean ( talk) 18:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
As I noted below, I now have access to more sources, and they have allowed me to add sources to the article. The additions show there is WP:SUSTAINED coverage of Barend, her work on the Interstate 86 is one example (with coverage in 1996, 1999 ,2000, and 2007) and the 2004 election is also sustained with coverage in 2005, 2006, and 2007. (Above I also corrected the year of the Melich article, that was my error). DaffodilOcean ( talk) 11:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0217654/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_2
  2. ^ O'Neal, Lydia (2017-05-30). "Foreign Firms Stand To Benefit From Trump Budget, Infrastructure Plans". International Business Times. Retrieved 2022-01-23. "It's definitely a new market environment," said Barend, whose group was the driving force behind legislative efforts to expand use of public-private partnerships. The Trump-backed plan to lift the cap on PABs [private activity bonds], she said, "was a nod to" her group's proposals.
  3. ^ "Samara Barend" (PDF). Women Builders Council. 2009. Retrieved January 23, 2022.
  4. ^ "Rising stars: Samara Barend" (PDF). The Bond Buyer. 2017. p. 26.
  5. ^ "City & State New York 02122018 by City & State - Issuu". issuu.com. February 12, 2018. p. 26. Retrieved 2022-01-23.
  6. ^ Mark, David (2007). Going Dirty: The Art of Negative Campaigning. Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 172–173. ISBN  978-0-7425-4501-4.
  7. ^ Melich, Tanya (2005-10-13). "From the Trenches: Attacking First-Time Women Candidates for Congress". Journal of Women, Politics & Policy. 27 (1–2): 85–107. doi: 10.1300/J501v27n01_06. ISSN  1554-477X.
  • Comment per WP:IBTIMES, There is consensus that the International Business Times is generally unreliable. Beccaynr ( talk) 18:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Good catch, I took out the quote from the page. DaffodilOcean ( talk) 19:02, 23 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Johnpacklambert - I respectfully disagree. Barend's campaign received five pages of coverage in the Hartmann 2005 book and two pages in David Mark's book. This makes the campaign itself a little unusual, which, combined with the coverage of her work on the I86 corridor, provides significant coverage of her work. Also, I have just received access to The Wikipedia Library (which is fantastic) and am in the process of adding more coverage of her work outside the 2004 campaign DaffodilOcean ( talk) 17:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 01:36, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Her work on Interstate 86 and being honored by the legislature, plus her subsequent work (all sourced here) seem significant enough. The divorce papers kerfluffle made the NY Times, so it wasn't just campaigning as usual. She also has been awarded various honors -- none of a global nature, but within her field. Lamona ( talk) 05:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 12:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Adnan Menderes Anadolu Lisesi

Adnan Menderes Anadolu Lisesi (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only reference in the article is a dead link to the schools website. I couldn't find anything in a WP:BEFORE that would work for notability either. Nor are high schools inherently notable. So I'm nominating this for deletion. Adamant1 ( talk) 08:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Rahul Singh (author)

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

Promotional content. Potentially failing WP:BIO. Many of the sources do not denote the notability of subject.

Also to note that this article has gone through the entire WP:DRAFTIFY process, with the article being moved to draftspace, and reverted by the author, and that the author had reverted draftification process twice on another article they had created, indicative that subsequent draftification here may be moot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertsky ( talk • contribs) 08:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

There are 18 sources; 7 sources are REFBOMB, trying to support the assertion that he lead a fundraiser. But from the sources, it seems that the fundraiser is a joint effort that's spread across multiple universities' alumni networks.

Notability as a guest lecturer is questionable as anyone can be invited as a guest lecturer as long the topic matches the subject matter a person is an expert/more experienced in.

There are three books listed in the bibliography, but it might as well be just two books, as Engineering to Ikigai and You know the glory, Not the story are the same book with different titles (as reveal in a source). There are a review for each book, which I don't think qualifies for notability under WP:AUTHOR: such work must have been the primary subject [sic] of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://milaap.org/fundraisers/SUMO?utm_source=shorturl No Crowdfund information page. Can be considered as primary source No Crowdfund information page. Can be considered as primary source No Nothing in the body text indicated that he led the team. ✘ No
https://www.iimnagpur.ac.in/news/guest-session-mr-rahul-singh/ Yes ~ Labelled as guest speaker. But written in promotional tone. Yes ~ Partial
https://www.iimb-vista.com/past-speakers Yes ? No just a list of previous speakers. Nothing to denote his notability. ✘ No
https://www.iimtrichy.ac.in/events/details/Nzk%3D/An_Atheist_Gets_the_Gita Yes Yes No Just an event notification. Nothing to indicate notability of the subject ✘ No
https://www.ntu.edu.sg/alumni/events/detail/2021/07/31/default-calendar/ntu-international-alumni-webinar-series-310721 Yes Yes No Just an event notification. Nothing to indicate notability of the subject ✘ No
https://gyanalogy.com/ No He runs the site. No No Homepage of the site. Nothing to indicate his notability. ✘ No
https://www.wionews.com/india-news/covid-19-alumni-of-singapore-universities-launch-crowdfunding-drive-for-oxygen-concentrators-to-india-382911 Yes Yes No Primarily on the fundraiser, as a group effort. ✘ No
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/major-international-food-company-partners-with-ihc-in-singapore-to-provide-crucial-covid-19-supplies-to-india/articleshow/82453756.cms?from=mdr Yes Yes No Primarily on the fundraiser, as a group effort. ✘ No
https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/others/indian-origin-alumni-of-singapore-univs-to-help-up-in-pandemic-times-101620224495135.html Yes Yes Primarily on the fundraiser, as a group effort. Not even mentioned by name ? Unknown
https://www.tamilmurasu.com.sg/tabla/singapore/helping-virus-hit-indians-breathe-again Yes Yes No Primarily on the fundraiser, as a group effort. ✘ No
https://nus.edu.sg/alumnet/thealumnus/issue-117/community/alumni-happenings/details/Mission-SUMO No Submission by the fundraising team. Promotional content ? Not sure what's the editorial process with regards to submissions by alumni No Primarily on the fundraiser, as a group effort. Not even mentioned by name ✘ No
https://www.ntu.edu.sg/alumni/alumni-stories-news/detail/extending-a-helping-hand-overseas Yes ? I see it as a cross between press release and a promotional content, and celebratory of an alumni involved in the project ~ Primarily on the fundraiser, as a group effort. This is written as he's sharing his perspective and involvement in the fundraising. ? Unknown
https://alumni.smu.edu.sg/news/2021/may/06/covid-19-alumni-singapore-universities-launch-crowdfunding-drive-oxygen Yes Yes No Repeat of source 7/wionews. ✘ No
https://rupapublications.co.in/books/an-atheist-gets-the-gita/ No Book listing No No ✘ No
https://www.tamilmurasu.com.sg/tabla/singapore/ancient-wisdom-simplified-modern-minds Yes Yes Yes Book review ✔ Yes
https://induspublishing.myshopmatic.com/products/engineering-to-ikigai-25-journeys-towards-purpose No Book listing No No ✘ No
https://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/12103 No Book listing No No ✘ No
https://www.tamilmurasu.com.sg/tabla/singapore/flying-high-thanks-sia-scholarships Yes Yes Yes Book review. In fact, this reveals that both Engineering to Ikigai and You know the glory, Not the story are the same books, just titled differently for the different national markets. ✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}.
– robertsky ( talk) 08:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – robertsky ( talk) 08:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. – robertsky ( talk) 08:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – robertsky ( talk) 08:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete agree with above analysis. Oaktree b ( talk) 18:48, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Agree with the above source analysis, except: iimnagpur does not provide significant coverage (hence doesn't contribute to GNG); current consensus on Economic Times is between generally unreliable and no consensus, per WP:TOI; the Hindustan Times piece also does not help with sigcov since it's doesn't even namecheck the subject; the NTU alumni story cannot be considered independent nor reliable from the subject (inherent interest in promoting alumni stories in a positive light), nor does it cover the subject in significant detail. The SMU alumni source shares this similar issue. The two book reviews do not cover the subject of the article in detail. My personal tally has all sources failing to contribute to the GNG, so this clearly fails WP:NBIO. I also don't think there have been multiple independent periodical articles or reviews of his work per WP:AUTHOR, because two is the bare minimum and I like to think we have higher standards, and also given that the author credited for both pictures in the book reviews is the subject of the article (it raises concerns about the independence of the pieces, due to the article's subject being given some choice over which picture to display for his "review" articles). Pilaz ( talk) 08:33, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ✗ plicit 12:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Khande Rao Holkar

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

There is no significant coverage about him in any reliable source. There is coverage about a person whose name is similar to him - Khanderao Holkar. But I can't find significant coverage about Khande Rao Holkar. The article is not notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Delete it because it doesn't have any reliable References. Delete it if better sources are not found. ThePremiumBoy ( talk) 08:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment - But there are no significant coverage about him anywhere in reliable sources. There should be atleast one reliable reference in the article that gives information about him. but the article doesn't even has a single reference. ThePremiumBoy ( talk) 12:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment According to WP:GNG, every article should have references with significant coverage in reliable sources, but this article does not even has a single reference. ThePremiumBoy ( talk) 09:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Ruler of the kingdom; clearly passes WP:NPOL. Sources are here [27] and Maratha Policy Towards Northern India stated " Khande Rao Holkar , the son of Malhar Holkar II , as the legal head of the Holkar House and he himself became the regent and virtual power in the State. VocalIndia ( talk) 06:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Necrothesp and @ ThePremiumBoy:, just enough?. Nomination should be withdrew. Thanks VocalIndia ( talk) 06:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment the nominator have confirmed as a sock and now blocked. VocalIndia ( talk) 06:51, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Robert McBain

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

Can't see any major credits that would go toward satisfying WP:NACTOR. About all I see is one of many actor interviews in the Shakespeare's Globe March 2001 research bulletin. [28] Clarityfiend ( talk) 07:40, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 12:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Lusíada University

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

As far as I can tell this article has only been referenced to a single source since it's creation in 2004 and the source doesn't even have anything to do with the place. Also when I did a WP:BEFORE all I could find was a few trivial name drops in articles about other things and a few school directories. Nothing that would constitute significant, in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources though. So I'm nominating the article for deletion. Adamant1 ( talk) 07:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

BitOasis

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

Fails WP:NCORP, Lacks WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORGIND. Possible WP:PROMO/ WP:COI. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens ( talk) 05:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kakegurui – Compulsive Gambler characters#Kirari Momobami. Liz Read! Talk! 05:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Kirari Momobami

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

The subject of the page might not be notable. All other Kakegurui characters are listed on the page List of Kakegurui – Compulsive Gambler characters, including the main character (Yumeko Jabami); the only thing that makes this subject stand out is due to cosplay, which I don't believe is enough of a reason to create a page. Vortex ( talk) 04:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Liz Read! Talk! 05:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Anil's Ghost

Anil's Ghost (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page consists entirely of original research and has been tagged as such since 2007. The novel by itself is not notable and doesn't merit its own article. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 04:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

If we're going to keep this (and it looks like we are), can we at least agree it needs to be substantially trimmed down? At this point most of the article consists of unsourced original research and more than a little editorializing. What if we stub it down to the plot and characters? I honestly don't see any way to source most of sections 1, 4, 5, 7, and 8 as they read more like a piece of lit crit than an encyclopedic entry. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 20:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Sure, go for it; I don't think anyone would object to that. DanCherek ( talk) 20:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

We appear to have reached a quick consensus to keep. In accordance w/ this discussion, I will be paring this article down to the essentials of plot, character, and that which has otherwise been properly sourced. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 20:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Oop, sorry in advance for your edit conflict. I was already at work on it when you posted this. I've left in some of the less-shaky OR and moved the maintenance tags down to it specifically. If you want to hack more out of it, that's fine. -- asilvering ( talk) 21:03, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This may possibly be the worst nomination I've ever seen of a Canadian article. Ignoring that surely any Ondaatje (one of the most famous current fiction writers in the nation) novel is going to easily meet GNG (he's only written 7 in the last half-century) and WP:NBOOK, the book is controversial, famous, and won a Giller Prize. I can't even being to comprehend how this came to be nominated. As to the content - this is definitely not the forum - WP:BeBold and improve the article. Generally, I'd WP:AGF, but this is the users sixth-ever Wikipedia edit - the previous edit, was a very sophisticated request to WP:Edit filter/False positives/Reports! Something seems odd here. Nfitz ( talk) 21:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Nfitz Bots have "false positive? report here!" links all the time. There's nothing sophisticated about following that link, looking at how others have responded, and writing up a report. -- asilvering ( talk) 22:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • He's a bot? Nfitz ( talk) 22:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    Let me rephrase: when you are caught by an edit filter, they have a "false positive? report here!" link. Anyone who was acting in good faith and had reasonable competence would be able to then follow that link and explain themselves. Hardly sophisticated. In this case, the edit filter didn't just tag the user's edit history, but actually blocked the edit entirely - very hard not to notice. -- asilvering ( talk) 23:13, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Okay - I was having trouble figuring out what that entire thing was - I couldn't find any instructions, or clear definition of it! I guess it must be new - it never triggered when I was a newb. I'll strike the word "sophisticated" ... though I note from the first edit that the summaries were quite sophisticated. Nfitz ( talk) 00:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Um, hello? I just tried to close the discussion and somebody reverted my edit. I thought we all agreed this is an obvious keep. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 23:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Just Another Cringy Username We did. I think that user may have assumed your edit was incorrect or vandalism. Sorry: this is probably going to happen to you a lot at the beginning. You should probably go talk to that editor on their talk page to resolve this. -- asilvering ( talk) 23:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Discospinster: You reverted someone who was withdrawing their own AfD nomination (without any other delete !votes), was that a misclick? DanCherek ( talk) 23:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Yeah, really starting to feel unwelcome here. Sorry for breaking into the private clubhouse. You guys have fun w/ this article. I'm out. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 23:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Don't give up! Given how quickly - one might say uniquely, you've jumped in, and fully comprehend so many nuances of the project, then clearly you've a bright future ahead of you! Nfitz ( talk) 00:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Cleanup issues are a matter for the editing process, not the deletion process — but a widely-reviewed novel by one of Canada's most internationally famous writers, which won one of Canada's major notability-clinching literary awards, cannot possibly be deemed non-notable by any definition. If there's a problem with the content, then fix the content, and if there's a problem with the referencing, then fix the referencing — but there's a legitimately strong notability claim, and solid referencing most certainly does exist to improve the article with. Bearcat ( talk) 18:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The novel received several awards including Giller Prize and also significant coverage. The article clearly meets WP:NBOOK. 05:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC) Bigstory1 ( talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was draftify. ✗ plicit 12:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Sab Satrangi

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

Non-notable just-started TV (presumed-to-be-)series in same form that was declined at draft by User:FormalDude: "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of films). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia." DMacks ( talk) 04:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. DMacks ( talk) 04:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify, it's way WP:TOOSOON. There's useful information in the current article, if the subject turns out to attract enough attention to be notable. Otherwise, if the subject doesn't get written-about in the next six months, the draft can be deleted thereafter. Elemimele ( talk) 06:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify for now - Adding critical commentary would be extremely helpful, article creator needs to show more patience and work on existing drafts, not creating article after it was moved to draft space previously. Ravensfire ( talk) 18:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify with no comment on notability. I know making no comment on notability at an AfD is like being a food critic who reviews exclusively architecture, but the creator of the article needs to listen to FormalDude's suggestions and actually implement them - best to stop beating the horse before it becomes a carcass. casualdejekyll 23:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify, There's no need to delete the article THIS soon. I agree that I made a mistake by submitting the draft for review too soon but still deleting the article may not be a wise decision. If the topic doesn't turn out to be attractive, it can always be deleted later but for now, the article should be kept. I will correct my mistakes and add reliable sources to the article. Tech2009Girl ( talk), 8 February 2022 — Preceding undated comment added 02:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: I've indef CIR-blocked the article creator, who is also the only substantive contributor, for widespread problems (only one of which is re-creation of this arcticle against advice). DMacks ( talk) 15:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Liz Read! Talk! 05:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Vimosure

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

Overall looks and sounds like WP:promo. I don't really see why it would meet WP:GNG guidelines either. Signed, The4lines |||| ( Talk) ( Contributions) 04:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Liz Read! Talk! 05:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Aanchal Kumar

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

An out and out nondescript article. Fails WP:GNG, and WP:NACTOR. Lacks WP:SIGCOV, and WP:RS. Possible WP:PROMO/ WP:COI issues. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens ( talk) 03:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Every keep !vote other than the first is given very low weight for being "per X", but the suggestion that NACTOR has not been met was successfully refuted by MoviesandTelevisionFan. Stifle ( talk) 14:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Sally Wheeler

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

Same reasoning as 3 months ago - she had a 22 episode role in the 1998 series Two of a Kind but not much after- has 11 credits total per IMDb with not many if any being significant roles and not many resources aside from a Bustle article I found. Most of the other articles are just mentions of her. Doesn’t meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:26, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. Meets WP:GNG, with also meeting WP:NACTOR with her role in Two of a Kind and perhaps her stage performances too. MoviesandTelevisionFan ( talk) 15:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per above. Oaktree b ( talk) 16:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per above. The article needs a lot of clean-up for grammar, redundancies ("She did x. After x, she did y"), WP:OVERLINKing of place names, etc., and to properly link the names of the stage shows that she was in. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 16:31, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Ssilvers:, @ Oaktree b: - you consider 11 credits from the span of 1998-2014 significant enough for her own wiki page? Most of the roles are as minor characters that don’t get more than 1 episode. LADY LOTUS • TALK 21:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The 22 episodes of Two of a Kind and the other body of work along with other reliable sources seem to satisfy. She was also in a Lyrica commerical (per the Bustle article) in which the manufacturer spent several millions dollars to promote, she's probably more remembered from that these days. Oaktree b ( talk) 01:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Additional comment - the 4 Lakeside Ledger references used on her page and used to seem as "significant coverage" are from a newspaper in her hometown that does a single paragraph mention each article. I don't count that as significant as "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention". WP:NACTOR has "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows" - she had a 22 episode run on the only season of Two of a Kind but nothing passed that so the "multiple films and tv shows" doesn't apply. I will add that whatever the outcome of this is, I'll be fine with, I just want all facts to be known before a decision is made. :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, for the reasons of those who want to keep this article. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 22:15, 3 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to discuss the significance of the sourcing
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep as per the reasons above, seems to be superfluous nomination with no merit. article is well sourced and relevant.
TVHead ( talk) 15:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Comment: @ TVHead: - instead of just repeating others arguments, are you able to tell me how she does meet GNG and NACTOR? As I've said above but noone responded to, the 4 Lakeside Ledger references used on her page and used to seem as "significant coverage" are from a newspaper in her hometown that does a single paragraph mention each article. I don't count that as significant as "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention". WP:NACTOR "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows" - she had a 22 episode run on the only season of Two of a Kind but nothing passed that so the "multiple films and tv shows" doesn't apply. Would you care to explain your reason for the Keep vote? LADY LOTUS • TALK 16:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Lady Lotus my reasoning is above, and seems to be the consensus (again). Thanks for the reply. TVHead ( talk) 17:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
So you didn’t explain your reasoning (again) or respond to my question. Thanks. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:46, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
I'm sorry you disagree with the consensus (for the second time). However arguing with me over my own view isn't helpful. TVHead ( talk) 17:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
It’s just frustrating because noone will explain their vote. All youre saying is whatever the others arguments are instead of explaining how she meets GNG and NACTOR when I’ve pointed out that she doesn’t. Like if I’m wrong, I’m wrong and her page will stay and that’s fine but noone is responding to me and the points I’ve made. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:57, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Amirkhan Shavayev

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

A footballer who played for some lower-tier football clubs (hence, even if that would not be a reason to keep this, this footballer even fails the very loose suggestions of WP:NFOOTY regarding notability) and now [or at least, as of the last time the article was updated] holds the dubious (in terms of encyclopedic notability) distinction of playing for an amateur side... A search for proper reliable sources to meet WP:GNG does not yield any result whatsoever (besides this interview which looks to be about some lad in Crimea with the same name...), which would be quite astonishing for a "notable" 21st century footballer, even if they're from a non-English country.

Of course, the source in the article is (if you're not surprised!) nothing but a very mundane and all-inclusive database...

Hence, a very, very thorough fail of WP:GNG. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 03:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Liz Read! Talk! 05:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Lara Piper

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

I was not able to find sufficient in-depth coverage to indicate that the subject meets WP:NACTOR or WP:NARTIST. The sources in the article are social media, user-generated, or, in the case of the Chronicle article, do not mention her. There is virtually no coverage of her as an artist, not even trivial mentions, so that can be safely discarded as a potential source of notability. Her acting career was short-lived, and also did not produce much media interest. The best I could find were these two newspaper clips: [29] and [30], both from early 1990. The first isn't bad - a little "star spotlight" feature in a Texas paper, but the second link is just a short human-interest fluff piece about her emceeing a local student function. There was nothing after that. I don't think it's sufficient coverage to keep a BLP about someone whose public career is largely over and who is unlikely to generate new coverage. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 03:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Liz Read! Talk! 21:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Camille Stewart

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

Refs are mix of profiles and interviews. Fails WP:SIGCOV. WP:BLPPRIMARY. scope_creep Talk 00:24, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply

@ DaffodilOcean: Good work on updating the article, although the quotes in the references are deeply uncool and will need formatted properly at some point, if the article survives. It may survive yet. The Bloomberg reference is semi-decent but is covers five companies and would count only as a basic reference. The awards are non-notable. They are corporate awards and are junk. The Politico references I'll check them; they may be better. scope_creep Talk 17:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC) reply
I did not intend to cause problems with the quotes. Is the problem the existence of the quotes, or the formatting of the quotes? I thought it would be helpful to have the information in case people cannot access the sources. DaffodilOcean ( talk) 19:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC) reply
It is a simple fix. No worries. Forget about it. I'll fix it, if the article survives. scope_creep Talk 19:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Change from comment --> keep; I added in a few more citations, but minor pieces compared to my earlier additions. DaffodilOcean ( talk) 04:10, 7 February 2022 (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) 02:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep The sources confirm that she has held high-level positions in her field. There are enough sources that focus on her to meet NBIO. Lamona ( talk) 05:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. per sources provided during the discussion. I suggest further integration into the article, but that's not a matter for AfD. Star Mississippi 02:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Global Hotel Alliance

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

WP:PROMO article that doesn't show notability per what's required in WP:NCORP. The article is merely a document of the company's holdings and its loyalty program. A search for WP:RS comes up empty (just some chatter in hospitality industry trade press, nothing of broader social interest) because it's a private holding company. FalconK ( talk) 00:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Selection of three sources:
      1. Zámborský, Peter; Kruesi, Michael A. (2018-01-02). "Global Hotel Alliance: Strategy Discovery Moving East". SAGE Business Cases. SAGE Publishing. doi: 10.4135/9781526440044. Retrieved 2022-01-30.

        This case study has a length of 4,128 words. Here is the outline of the case study:

        1. Case
        2. Learning Outcomes
        3. Introduction
        4. GHA Background
        5. DISCOVERY Rewards Program
        6. Competitor Analysis
        7. Strategic Challenges Faced by the GHA
        8. Conclusion
        9. Discussion Questions
        10. Further Reading
        11. References
        The case study notes in the "Conclusion" section: "With the move of its headquarters from Geneva to Dubai, the GHA positioned itself well for the growing emerging markets in the Middle East, Africa, and the Asia-Pacific region. However, the alliance faced stiff competition from other hotel alliances with a global footprint, global hotel multinationals, and some strong local players in the luxury segment of the market where they competed. To overcome these strategic challenges, the GHA invested heavily in technology and marketing, trying to distinguish itself from competitors and provide value to its members and customers. The key decisions that the GHA management had to make related to its geographic positioning and marketing positioning in what has increasingly been a global marketplace for luxury hotels."
      2. Ind, Nicholas; Iglesias, Oriol (2016). Brand Desire: How to Create Consumer Involvement and Inspiration. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. pp. 86–87. ISBN  978-1-4729-2535-0. Retrieved 2022-01-30 – via Google Books.

        The book has a two-page section titled "Global Hotel Alliance and transformational leadership". The book notes: "GHA was established in 2004 as a way of sharing customers and services across different independent hotel brands. Today, there are thirty-two brands and over 500 luxury hotels and resorts. The initial thought about building the GHA brand was to mimic the way airline alliances were structured – encouraging customers to collect points as they stayed at hotels and to cross-sell different experiences. In the early days the challenge though was getting the individual hotel group CEOs to agree on a way forward – everyone had their own subjective view of what would work."

      3. Verbeke, Alain; Roberts, Robin E.; Delaney, Deborah; Zámborský, Peter; Enderwick, Peter; Nagar, Swati (2019). Contemporary International Business in the Asia-Pacific Region. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 231. ISBN  978-1-108-62068-0. Retrieved 2022-01-30 – via Google Books.

        The book has a "Spotlight" titled "The Global Hotel Alliance seeking growth in the East". The book notes: "Boutique hotel chains from the Asia-Pacific region, including Rydges and Antara, joined forces with other luxury hotels and formed the Global Hotel Alliance (GHA). The GHA represents over 34 brands with over 500 hotels and resorts operating in more than 76 countries. The alliance moved its headquarters from Geneva, Switzerland, to Dubai, United Arab Emirates in 2014. Thus, it positioned itself for growth in the East rather than focusing on Europe and America, where its competitors hailed from; ... Thirty-three per cent of GHA's hotels are located in the Asia-Pacific region, closely behind Europe (34 per cent) and ahead of the Middle East and Africa (20 per cent)."

    2. Additional sources:
      1. Chathoth, Prakash K. (2008). "Strategic alliances in the hospitality industry". In Olsen, Michael; Zhao, Jinlin (eds.). Handbook of Hospitality Strategic Management. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. p. 227. ISBN  978-0-08-045079-7. Retrieved 2022-01-30 – via Google Books.

        The book notes: "Yet another example of a marketing alliance that uses technology to create synergy is the Global Hotel Alliance. ... This alliance has brought together seven prominent hotel brands that include Dusit Hotels & Resorts; Kempinski Hotels; Landis Hotels & Resorts; Marco Polo Hotels; Omni Hotels; Pan Pacific Hotels and Resorts; and The Leela Palaces and Resorts. This also provides the allying firms with a more global access to markets while at the same time providing customers with a one-stop internet site that provides customers and travel agents with attractive prices and access to all member hotels' products, while providing them access to airline products as well."

      2. Gong, Yeming (2013). Global Operations Strategy: Fundamentals and Practice. Berlin: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. p. 196. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-36708-3. ISBN  978-3-642-36707-6. ISSN  2192-4333. Retrieved 2022-01-30 – via Google Books.

        The book notes: "The hospitality industry has also built a number of alliances. For example, the "global hotel alliance" (GHA) is a collection of 14 luxury regional hotel brands with 300 hotels, palaces and resorts in 52 countries around the world. An important RM tool of GHA is "GHA Discovery", a loyalty program rewarding travelers with "local experiences" to offer members access to a large selection of adventures not easily available to the general public, since GHA believes that rewarding members with memorable experiences is more valuable than collecting points. GHA Discovery also provides general hotel benefits such as complimentary Internet, early check-in, late check-out, upgrades, and guaranteed availability."

      3. Evans, Nigel (2015) [2003]. Strategic Management for Tourism, Hospitality and Events (2 ed.). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. p. 418. ISBN  978-0-415-83727-9. Retrieved 2022-01-30 – via Google Books.

        The book notes: "Global Hotel Alliance (GHA) brings together mainly mid-to-upscale brands from around the world. Unlike Best Western it represents smaller chains of hotels which maintain their individual branding. The consortium represents brands such as ParkRoyal, Pan Pacific and Marco Polo which have properties across Asia Pacific; and Kempinski Hotels, a luxury brand with properties across Europe, Asia and Africa and Leela, which is represented at key locations across India."

      4. Sharkey, Jon (2004-03-16). "Business Travel: On the Road; At Upscale Hotels, Women Have Power". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2022-01-30. Retrieved 2022-01-30.

        The article notes: "Skeptical industry executives say it is not at all certain that a partnership like Global Hotel Alliance, comprising highly individualized independent regional companies, each run by strong-willed executives, can cooperate and compete persuasively against the luxury giants for the valued international traveler. ... All four of the participating chains, which have a total of 235 upscale hotels mostly in the boutique and midsize categories, already market personalized services, of course."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Global Hotel Alliance to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 09:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Maybe in that case we should replace the article completely with material from the case studies. I'm surprised I didn't uncover those. FalconK ( talk) 21:14, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The keep argument may be mistakenly worded, but it seems to indicate that an analysis of the sources was not performed. Therefore a more thorough look should be made.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 02:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep The sources shared by Cunard establish notability. NemesisAT ( talk) 14:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep with the new sources. Gusfriend ( talk) 09:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Maritime Matters

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

Maritime Matters is a user-generated blog that fails WP:WEBCRIT. The one reference found that specifically mentions it also describes it as a blog [ here]. While it appears that the writer makes an effort to ensure accuracy, there is no editorial oversight. The web site owner voluntarily discontinued it about two years ago and the pages can only be found through the wayback machine. The domain appears abandoned. The website doesn't inherit any nobability that the individual contributors might have by their own merit. Blue Riband► 01:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as AfD was created in error. (non-admin closure) – NJD-DE ( talk) 00:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

The Daily Wire

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

I meant to open an AfD for Candace (show) not The Daily Wire. I accidentally clicked on a wikilink to The Daily Wire beforehand or had multiple tabs open. I'm not sure what happened, but I'm asking for assistance in remedying this huge mistake at the help desk. Sorry for any disruption in editing. TipsyElephant ( talk) 00:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

I previously opened a WP:PROD and I am still concerned about the notability of this topic. I am not suggesting that Candace Owens or The Daily Wire are not notable, but that this show is not notable as an independent subject and does not WP:INHERIT notability from its host, network, or guests. The current sourcing is very poor in regards to coverage related to the show specifically. Most of the sources are only WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of the show and instead are heavily focused on Candance Owens, The Daily Wire, or Donald Trump. For example, the Forbes article only contains one sentence that mentions the show. Most of the sources don't mention the show at all. For instance, the New York Daily News, Newsweek, CNN, and The Washington Examiner sources all discuss related topics such as Candace Owens, The Daily Wire, and Trump but never even mention a show or podcast let alone provide in depth coverage of the show. Sources like the first and second references from The Hill as well as the Black Enterprise are largely WP:INTERVIEW content, which means that they are primary or not independent of the subject.

The reliability of the current sources is also quite concerning. I would expect to see a few sources that have made it to WP:RSP as "generally reliable" or a few sources that are not on RSP but appear reliable. However, the reliability of The Washington Examiner, WP:NEWSWEEK, and WP:FORBESCON are all in question at RSP and as such likely do not contribute to notability even if they did mention the show. The reliability of OutKick and Black Enterprise have not been evaluated at RSP/RSN as far as I can tell. For OutKick, I can't find anything about an editorial board, mission statement, or even a list of staff and the parent company is simply OutKick Media. The site is at the very least a clearly partisan source and the author of this particular article is included on the site's list of "contributors", which is often mentioned at WP:RSP as potentially unreliable ( WP:CONTRIBUTOR is relevant). The Black Enterprise source at least has an about page and a management staff page, however, I don't see "Cedric 'Big Ced' Thornton" listed as a member of the staff. The New York Daily News is at least listed at RSP as "generally reliable", but even that entry notes that editors "question the accuracy of its tabloid-style headlines" and the title in question is "Cardi B and Candace Owens threaten to sue each other in epic Twitter battle".

I also believe that WP:NOTNEWS is extremely pertinent. When looking for sources I find quite a few news stories about Trump and his stance on the covid-19 vaccine rather than discussion about what the show is, common topics of the show, how long an average episode is, how many episodes are there, what platforms is it available on, what are similar or related shows, or a review of the show as a whole. While reading the current sources it's unclear whether this is a podcast, radio show, television show, or only a youtube channel. Based on my searches for additional sources it appears that Trump's views on vaccines is more notable than this show. The whole interaction between Candace and Cardi B sounds like WP:NOTGOSSIP. I also think WP:ROUTINE is relevant considering the few sources that do discuss the show are mostly just announcing that the start of the show and Candace's move to The Daily Wire.

There was a merge discussion that ended in no consensus with very little evidence suggesting that the show is independently notable. I believe this topic is more suited for a section at both the articles for Candace Owens and The Daily Wire rather than an independent page. There has also been some discussion on the talk page regarding whether the content could be merged to Candace Owens or The Daily Wire. If any of the content is preserved I would suggest merging it to Candace Owens because the focus of the article is supposed to be on a show that she hosts and, given the name of the show, couldn't exist without her as the host. Whereas, The Daily Wire is the production company and most of the time news coverage of shows like this barely mention the production company, but The Daily Wire probably should have an entry for the show as well. TipsyElephant ( talk) 00:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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/2022_February_7&oldid=1071927685"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 06 February 08 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 07:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Jamiatul Hidaya, Jaipur

Jamiatul Hidaya, Jaipur (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It is a madrassa that claims to have 173 acres of land. It does not seem to have anything else. Sabeelul hidaya ( talk) 08:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep It seriously meets WP:GNG. See this at the Milli Gazette. "The most famous among them is the Jamiatul Hidaya, billed as the 'hi-tech madrasa'". (See). And this, "Jamiatul Hidaya is not just an institution, rather a movement...". Here it has been considered a third-type of madrasa, which gives it prominence in the madrasa history of India. Journal of Objective Studies discussing it. If I dig up more resources, there would be plenty, but I believe this is enough. The nominator has not tried a legit WP:BEFORE. ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 13:50, 26 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per The Aafī rationale above. Besides this, the article has news coverage by 3 different Indian newspapers The Times of India, The Siasat Daily and an in-depth profile of this university by The Milli Gazette. Ngrewal1 ( talk) 19:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The first reference provided by The Aafī looks like a PR puff piece press release that was written by someone with a connection to the school. Either they teach for it, paid by them to write the article, both, or just have zero journalistic integrity as an author. Either way it doesn't bode well for the reference going toward notability. The second reference isn't much better. What it says about this being "the most famous among the hi-tech madrasa" is hyperbolic nonsense. Notability isn't determine by rando author saying something is famous. Whereas, the third reference is a trivial name drop. It seems like every time there's an AfD for a madrasa people come along to post a bunch of trivial PR pieces, attack the nominator, and say something along the lines of "Keep because so and so says it's one of the most famous madrasa in wherever. So it must be notable." In the meantime Madrasas aren't inherently notable and we should really do better by not allowing every single madrasa to exist on Wikipedia no matter how trivial or promotional the coverage of it is. Especially not just because some random author thinks it's the greatest thing to come along in Islamic education since writing was invented or whatever. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 05:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    It is illogical to say that the chancellor of one of major central universities in India, MANUU, was paid to write an article about Jamiatul Hidaya. FYI, he isn't worth it. The sources from Google books aren't just trivial mentions rather they discuss the subject, but sadly "Google preview is limited". I agree that every madrasa isn't notable but always AfDing a "specific set of institutions" is suspicious. We have had such behavior in past from Authordom. I do not want to make you feel bad but the way nomination has been carried out, it makes it clear that they didn't even try searching for it first and just went forward AfDing it. Nonetheless, I'm searching for more significant sources. Thanks. ─ The Aafī (talk) 08:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC) reply
I don't know what you mean by "he isn't worth it", but it isn't much of a stretch that a university would pay an educator to write about them. I don't know why he would use such hyperbolically non-neutral language like "set amidst the peaceful sylvan surroundings of Jaipur’s Ramgarh, encircled by a tranquil valley and cool lake" to describe the school unless he was being paid. The article is literally an add for the university. As far as if the nomination is suspicious, there's nothing that says people can't work in area they are interested in. Plus, someone could make the same insinuations about your motives since your involved in every AfDs about madrasas that I'm aware of. You've done pretty weird defending of certain things to. Like saying he isn't worth paying to write an add for the university. Which seems like something only someone connected to the university or him would know. Not that I'm saying you have a COI, because it's a weak way to handle things, but I am making the point that you'd probably be better off not questioning other people's actions when yours are also suspect. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 08:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless ( talk) 07:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: Apart from the Milli Gazette article that I linked above, I was able to get hold of second source, which I have used in the article. The source "Qasmi 2005" gives more than a page to Jamiatul Hidaya. I also added one Urdu source in the Further reading section because I do not feel expanding the article at the moment. The Urdu source is published journal by the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (though significant, I'd take this a 'low reliable source') but I recently discovered that this Madrasa has got over two pages in Education and Muslims in India since Independence, published by Institute of Objective Studies, India. I'm on my search and hopefully I'd get more sources that significantly discuss this madrasa as the "Qasmi 2005" source regards this a third type of madrasa in India, and states that in India madrasas follow three setups, one among them separately led by the Jamiatul Hidaya. This makes the prominence of this Jamia more national. The sources so far make a tendency towards passing WP:GNG. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per above. This meets GNG and WP:NSCHOOL as a notable institute in Jaipur. Hawawshibread ( talk) 11:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:48, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep: as per TheAafi's reasonings. Though, it needs more inline citations. - Hatchens ( talk) 14:46, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No participation after two relists. I considered soft deletion as an option, but given the half-hearted nomination statement, I'm going with no consensus. RL0919 ( talk) 22:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Kazim Can

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

Notability is under question — Toghrul R ( t) 08:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:VAGUEWAVE.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Liz Read! Talk! 03:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Hans B. Ringger

Hans B. Ringger (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BEFORE search turned up no new sources. The references all on the article are WP:PRIMARY and do not establish WP:GNG. With that being said, this individual does not pass WP:GNG. Rollidan ( talk) 19:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:10, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete There are currently 109 general authorities in the LDS church. Are we going to have articles on all of them, and all their predecessors? The only interesting thing about Ringger is that he was Swiss; and that is not very interesting! Nwhyte ( talk) 01:27, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Liz Read! Talk! 03:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Syed Ashik Rahman

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

Other than one interview and some passing mentions, there is no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Didn't won any significant award or anything. Fails WP:GNG, WP:DIRECTOR, WP:ANYBIO. (Also, i think the article creator has connection with the subject, see this photo, took by article creator) আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk) 22:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete The cited sources are: a primary source interview with no independent analysis, brief quotes of him, one-line producer credits, and a press release about a non-notable business award from a non-notable organization ("a network of more than 16,000 top marketing executives"). Searches of the usual Google types, in English and Bengali, found nothing more substantial. Without significant coverage in indpendent reliable sources, does not meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. -- Worldbruce ( talk) 19:12, 10 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Liz Read! Talk! 03:55, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Lychnostatis Open Air Museum

Lychnostatis Open Air Museum (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Nothing in gnews, and gets small mentions in gbooks. LibStar ( talk) 22:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete It seems the main issue with this article is significant coverage. While many independent and reliable sources have said something about this place, that something is usually a single sentence, and the most significant coverage I found, in the actual published and completely real book DK Eyewitness Top 10 Crete by Robin Gauldie, has a grand total of 43 words to say about it, which is less then half of WP:100W. And some people don't even think 100W is a high enough standard. casualdejekyll 23:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Fiction Syxx

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

Heavy metal/progressive rock band formed by musicians who have played with sort-of-notable bands before. However, I cannot find sufficient significant coverage to meet our notability criteria. (I also don't see how it meets WP:BAND.) Pichpich ( talk) 21:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Pichpich ( talk) 21:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - The band just hasn't been noticed. And while there are some possibilities for a band to qualify for notability if it is made up of members that are notable elsewhere, that is not the case here. With the exception of the now-departed Tony Franklin, the members of this band are journeymen who have all been side players in other bands for brief periods, and often long after those bands' glory days. Therefore this band must stand on its own, and it has not been noticed by any reliable sources in music media. I can only find them in their own social media and occasional non-critical (and probably paid) promotional sites like these: [1], [2]. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 22:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Yggdrassil (network protocol)

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

WP:TOOSOON and insufficient reliable sources for notability. Only sources are github reports, and a presentation at a conference. Article says the product is still in development. Disputed PROD, and rationale for disputing the PROD was because disambiguation was required, which is not a rationale to overcome lack of notability. Singularity42 ( talk) 20:31, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

If the differentiation in the stub can be incorporated in the disambiguation page (which currently fails to capture several entities of that name), then deletion will do no harm. Although, one of those nice templates saying "This article is a stub, please improve it" would probably yield results! Michaelgraaf ( talk) 08:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Singularity42 ( talk) 20:31, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Obvious not fit for namespace as it stands and AfD is no place to improve such a poor effort. Creator's dePROD without improvement seems either disruptive or showing a lack competency which is not worthy of TOOSOON/draftification option. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 08:56, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Blablubbs ( talk) 20:51, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Globcal International

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

Fails WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS. The "Secretary General" of the organization, David J. Wright (wiki user Problemsmith) describes it himself as not "registered with any authority" and "not having a physical business location". [3] There are no reliable sources supplied in the article and none can easily be found on the web. The "parent organization" is listed in the article as Ecology Crossroads Cooperative Foundation, which was also set up by Wright. In fact, it appears that the entire article refers to no more than a set of social media accounts and a few web pages. The Facebook account has fewer than 5000 followers.

The page was created by user Ingenosa. This is almost certainly a sockpuppet account for Problemsmith given the writing style employed when he complained about edits to the article [4]. Wright admits on his user page to having employed multiple accounts in the past ("I lost track of the other accounts I originally have used") [5]. Another very likely sockpuppet is Rokrunestone, who signed up to oppose the deletion of the wiki page for Wright and was promptly banned the next day. [6]. The contribution history for user Shamansfriend would strongly suggest they are yet another sockpuppet.

Most of the supplied references in the article refer to the organization's website which appears to have been constructed solely by Wright himself. The single citation which appears valid at first sight is the United Nations listing [7], but as that page itself makes clear, "a profile in this database and on this website does not in and of itself connote any affiliation with the United Nations". Barry Wom ( talk) 19:39, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

This is a space a deletion discussion, not a sockpuppetry case. Some of this belongs here, other parts belong at a sockpuppetry investigastion. @ Barry Wom Starship SN20 ( talk) 20:58, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
From Problemsmith: I respectfully deny any and all allegations of sockpuppetry at anytime on Wikipedia, Ingenosa is a person that I knew who died in 2020, and yes I was there when she was collaborating with officers in Romania, Saudi Arabia and the UK when the article was originally written, but it is not sockpuppetry. Rokrunestone was one of the cofounders of Globcal, Dr. Peter James, that was deceased in 2012, he was from England living in Romania and had a personal argument with Wikipelli over membership with our organization who took his vengeance on James by attacking me, still not sockpuppetry, nonetheless I am glad the article about me was deleted, it was a birthday present to me I never asked for from friends and family that Wikipedia took away.
I have been involved in editing and updating links and infobox data on this GLOBCAL article, but not really anything else, nor do I believe any major updates or much context has been added since the article was originally written. The organization has seen communicative support from David Rockefeller and others in the past; it was relatively active in the Middle East and engaged in organizing protests of the Arab Spring in Egypt, some of its more notable antics have been suppressed with the removal of several Facebook groups. News and competition for it, are things that have changed dramatically in the past 10 years, the article about Globcal International is more than 12 years old, the organization has had offices in Vienna, Switzerland and Belize, most of which does not appear in the article; it is currently registered with the Sustainable Development Goals program at the UN as well are some of its individual members. Members of the organization one from Nepal and another from Russia were personally involved in writing the Sustainable Development Goals at an event in Switzerland in 2015 to be introduced just months later. The organization was also incorporated in Washington, DC as an LLC from 2010 to 2013, something which I had nothing to do with, many of the things that should be said in the article have not been, because I generally do not edit articles about myself, except on my Wikipedia User Page which is pompous and ponderous. It is an organization that has many actors and several active diplomatic professionals.
Yes sure I was blocked on Friday past, for disruptive editing after having numerous relevant edits reverted by the person now making this article deletion request, accusing me of sockpuppetry on a page about me, that was deleted more than 10 years ago now, clearly his way of trying to remove me from Wikipedia, with deceased authors in 3 countries, even David Rockefeller has died. All of these vengeful allegations because an article I was working on became the compulsive focus objective of Barry Wom who clearly panders to Big Chocolate perhaps as a paid editor or maybe just because he likes big chocolate, more than fine and aromatic chocolate, IDK? It is clear he focused on revamping the article during the 48 block imposed on me, appealed and upheld by ToBeFree who I had complained to about the reversions and being blindsided by the competing editor, something which I accepted as the penalty for my incivility, for the admin that resolved the dispute there were no excuses for my behavior other than to uphold the charge for being uncivil. For me it ended there and I told myself I would not work on the Types of chocolate article any more, because Barry Wom made it abundantly clear in the following days making over 20 reconstructive edits, that my edits were not and would not be welcome there despite being well-referenced and in good-faith, so is life, perhaps the 1000 chocolate companies all around the world making several billion a year is not notable enough compared to the big chocolate people and their types of chocolate, ok already I do understand that, small chocolate despite being 1000 companies against the 25 big ones just means they need their own page for their own types of chocolate. However, I had never imagined becoming targeted, bullied or having allegations of misconduct or having other allegations thrown at me based on a Wikipedia editor taking personal reprisals which speaks more now about his civility who is focused on, my work or work that I am associated with solely based on my personal association with ideas and concepts that I engage become involved with like chocolate. Whether you can call it a reprisal by Barry Wom to attack now everything I stand for or including activities from more than 10 years ago is suspiciously revengeful, spiteful and uncivil; especially less than a few days after being delivered a penalty is not a coincidence, now has escalated to the equivalent of double-jeopardy or worse, because now I am being investigated, stalked, threatened, and accused by a victim with a grudge to settle making immoral or otherwise dishonorable conduct a norm on Wikipedia all because I defended a few edits with an uncivil tone and approach. It also appears that he is out to do me in with the people I must supervise at Globcal International and all the others that work there.
The fact alone that I did not incorporate Globcal International in 2010 shortly after I founded it in 2009, or worked there for the several years afterwards is enough to justify its continued existence on Wikipedia despite some time of inactivity during the past several years. Globcal was on TV in Italy, Serbia and local stations in Jedda and Riyad during my inactivity with it where a UN program was development enhanced called the Stop TB Partnership by its authors. The organization has also been recognized by other world leaders including Barack Obama that aided in starting it in 2009, he still follows us on Twitter; this was all when he had his czars that he fired several months later leaving our contact Van Jones without a job and us without a contact. There are many organizations on Wikipedia that do not even exist anymore, there are others that have not existed for 200 years also.
When I told the Wikipedia administrator ToBeFree I would not disruptively edit any further, I really thought that would be the end of it and I was sincere, why I am being singled-out, being forced to have to suffer additionally at the hands of the victim for which I already suffered a penalty for attacking him over reverting my edits is not right and does not make Wikipedia a hospitable place, a safe one or for welcoming to any new editors, something that is encouraged in most Wikiprojects. I am really sorry to have tried to improve the types of chocolate article, please Mr. Barry Wom, will you ever forgive me? I am really sorry to have attacked your Talk page. Or am I destined to continuing unfair treatment by yourself, admins and editors forevermore on Wikipedia? I am not sure what it feels like to be bullied, but this sure does feel like it. Problemsmith ( talk) 04:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply
If any of the above claims for notability are factual, you should be supplying reliable sources for them. Barry Wom ( talk) 11:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Barry Wom, it is not my goal on Wikipedia to write about myself or legitimize the organization outside of my User Page, Globcal International is a volunteer organization that promotes 'big tent' political positions to address world issues with global citizens (activists and advocates) it started on Facebook and that is where it mostly works since the other networks it engaged have lost users and the failure of Google+. Since 2018 all of our official work uses Google Workspace and Meta Workplace, private networks instead of public. As I said, I am not here to squabble, Globcal International is an organization that has some noteworthy people in their own countries and abroad, some may even have articles in their own countries, the only part important to us is that they are members and what they do for us professionally, which really is not a lot considering they are volunteers and their principle connection is as members that need service to boost their own careers or help them develop their own programs. This is not an issue about notability for an article that was very notable in 2009 or our pride as an organization because our efforts are promoted with sensitivity and humility, this is an issue about creating a dim view about an organization simply because I am associated with it and stuck in the middle with a title and leadership role for the legitimate entity, that I do not personally lead except legally, that you are seeking to destroy and using suspected sockpuppetry as an excuse to appease yourself after I attacked you on Wikipedia by defending edits on an article about chocolate, and that is precisely your motivation for requesting the Deletion of the Globcal International article, it is also and attempt to harm me. As a cooperative all the members have rights to individually claim their ground and project their ideas or roles as activists for their own causes. Two of our activists [8] Ref are very engaged in participating in online conferences and organizing them, some of these online events they participate in are viewed by thousands of people. So let's not consider them and the other members of Globcal International that I am not even necessarily overseeing, what is right from wrong, or even consciously examine what is going on here? Globcal International is an independent body headquartered in desk drawer in Belize that operates online as a decentralized autonomous entity, whatever that means to you I am not sure, but it was important enough to me to shore it up by making it an independent subsidiary of Ecology Crossroads which I founded in 1994 in Kentucky so in US jurisdiction it is under my wing, outside the US it is under the management of its independent members. But really the sad part is that you are intending to hurt all of them by taking part of their identity away by having their article deleted simply because I am involved with it and you did not like my edits on Wikipedia. It is all super Wiki-Politics and settling a score with me: it is not mature, manly or civil and I think since I was penalized by a Wikipedia admin, paid the penalty that this matter should not exist. Let's bury the hatchet, withdraw the Deletion Discussion and just avoid each other like good civilians by not getting in each other's way. There are more positive things to do that criticize things that I am involved in just because I choose to be transparent and integral. It is my understanding now since last week's experience that being civil and having an aggressive editing style are not always the best companions. Either is picking fights on technical matters regarding chocolate. Taking away the Globcal article hurts many others more than me, it harms remote indigenous cultures [9]Ref (good reference item if the UN website worked correctly), it is a blow against human rights activists, it will have an impact on biodiversity and climate change; but most of all it harms its members and all the people they serve, it harms their reputation and can make them difficult to find. Without our inspiration or involvement the Rotary World Peace Conference in 2016 [10]Ref may have never occurred if it was not for one of our officers. But really Barry we need to keep our head about this; taking an eye for an eye and another eye and then another is not the right approach to being civil, it is vengeance pure and simple; so I appeal to you to withdraw the deletion request. Please don't make me a victim or target of emotional sentiment or carry this on any further or soon someone may be investigating you, who you are and what you are trying to do with this, just revert the whole thing and it will go away I assure you we, our members and the world will all be better off for it. Or maybe you should be constructive and edit these references here into the Globcal International article to demonstrate that you are a good Wikipedia editor and not someone out for revenge based on an unrelated incident last week. Problemsmith ( talk) 15:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Another wall of text and still a failure to provide decent reliable sources to demonstrate the organization's notability.
"This is not an issue about notability for an article that was very notable in 2009"
The article was as notable in 2009 as it is today. It was tagged in 2011 for failing notability and requiring additional citations [11]. These tags were removed without any improvement to the article by none other than Shamansfriend [12]. Barry Wom ( talk) 16:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Barry Wom, sorry, not sure who Shamansfriend is exactly? It could be any one of several people that were working in our office in Caracas in 2013, when we had an office in Caracas. People were calling me the 'Shaman' around that time after buying Ekobius and establishing an agreement with Indigenous people shortly before then. I did not mount a wall of text to have all the other points disregarded or continue. Here I gave you two notable references about one of our members and a reference about another. Putting a new hatnote on the article perhaps would have been enough to inspire someone to make some new constructive edits, but deleting it based on suspicion of sockpuppetry following a wrong perpetrated by me against you, is what is being discussed from my perspective, and the vindictive nature of these actions. Most of the work performed by international NGOs today goes unnoticed due to the level of risk in places like Honduras and Mexico where people die defending ideas about the environment and their journalism. It is not my job to create a paper or digital trail so that people know everything about what we do or to cite all of our accomplishments. It is my job to establish the fact that we are legally engaged in international tax-exempt Laissez Faire that are beneficial to the public good and promote the well-being of our clients and projects, that is all I do! When I am not doing that I am doing research and editing websites about historical events 250 years ago. I really don't have much more to say regarding your challenges, except that Globcal did not do anything to you, and you would not be here attacking it if it were not for me attacking your reverts. In other words your personal queries are obviously provoked by my actions, they are not coincidental and they are unwarranted, unfair and immoral. Have a good time and be nice, which means don't be awnry or provoke the 7 deadly sins, but always maintain your honor, integrity and stand up for what you believe in! People simply do not believe in what you are doing to me, nor are the actions justifiable. Problemsmith ( talk) 17:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply
"sorry, not sure who Shamansfriend is exactly?"
Hopefully someone will soon be along to jog your memory. Barry Wom ( talk) 08:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
DO NOT DELETE - Here are some references to my previous statements for Barry Wom or another editor to incorporate in the Article. The operation, technique and theory to the whole Facebook diplomacy (article that I authored with the input of Peter James) in itself is noteworthy enough because of its size and reach at that time per our members who were 132 when the article first appeared, it was part of our success in those years and our starting point, until people started shying away, engaging differently with images and anonymizing their accounts. P!NK was a member on Facebook as well as were many other celebrities from 2010 until 2014 when that engagement switched to protected verified profiles using a blue checkmark. Africans with smartphones from Nigeria also put salt in the pudding impersonating others, something that continues today. Refs that verify some of previous statements made in my first reply to the proposed deletion are as follows:
  • Obama and Globcal follow each other on Twitter. 2008 - Present [13] Check it!
  • Comments by David Rockefeller on International Diplomacy School of Ireland [14] Article credits Globcal International for the creation of Facebook Diplomacy several years earlier. I spoke to him once in 2009 but that is nothing I need to prove to you.
  • US Undersecretary of State James Glassman commenting on work performed with Globcal International (apparently and purposefully not stating our name) which launched our Facebook Ambassadors development as a purposeful measure and the creation of the term. [15]
  • Link establishing our connection to Ecology Crossroads starting in 2020 with documentation on file with the KYSOS. [16]
  • There are also 3 other references Links 6, 7 and 8 (above) in the section referred to as a "wall of text" above and emboldened.
Barry may or may not be aware that organizations like Globcal International are non-state actors when working outside the country, sometimes working and living in harm's way as tourists, until or if they are accepted as landed international NGO officials; this entire effort by Barry can potentially endanger lives, based on developed treaties and programs the organization is involved in to protect biodiversity under the Nagoya Protocol and other diplomatic treaties that we work under. It is also considered an unkind, unprovoked, unfriendly, unusual and abusive bad-faith diplomatic measure being taken against our members that are associated with the United Nations, Mali, Colombia, Belgium and the US, who now want to know who Barry is? I have only been able to tell them that I don't know, I also told them there are no neutral mediators that have contacted me on this matter. I did not create the problem that Barry has tasked Globcal with trying to resolve based on my conduct with him, what a nice time we had today. Problemsmith ( talk) 22:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Of the 19 references, 11 are links to Globcal (including Facebook) which are used 15 times of the total usage of 23 times that references are used (i.e. Non-independent sources may not be used to establish notability from Wikipedia:Independent sources). The link to the United Nations page is just registration information similar to company registration (i.e. an indiscriminate source from the same Wikipedia:Independent sources page). The Hanifan article reference is from 1916 & 1920, with the last article 89 years before the foundation was created and does not confirm notability or directly relate to Globcal. The Kioskea article just defines Facebook Ambassador and does not reference Globcal (I just moved the citation to the middle of the sentence so it is next to the related content). The Wikibook "Course on the Foundations of Buddhist Culture" does not exist anymore and should ideally be removed. The Newsweek, NPR and Saudi Gazette references do not provide links to the actual articles which made it harder to see what was going on but reading them none of them mention Globcal. In summary, the page as written does not meet notability requirements and should be deleted. Gusfriend ( talk) 08:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Per Gusfriend unless WP:THREE presented clearly here and most if not all primary sourcing removed from article with WP:STUBIFY if necessary and it probably would be. I've a short span of attention. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 10:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete lack of any source information which is not either from the organization itself, or which is trivial in nature. Does not meet minimum standards of WP:GNG. No indepth, reliable, independent sources means no article. -- Jayron 32 14:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I have had concerns about this page since it was published. Does not meet notability guidelines and, per Barry Wom above, lacks sources to show anything factual to support notability claims. Wikipelli Talk 15:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I see this article is already getting deleted but it does not meet notability guidelines and, per Barry Wom above, lacks sources to show anything factual to support notability claims. I see that there already clear consensous to delete here. Starship SN20 ( talk) 15:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, Per above, the article does not support WP:GNG Alex-h ( talk) 16:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - WP:THREE is just a theory on a talk page, but it is a good guideline. WP:GNG, WP:STUBIFY, WP:MERGE because there is too much WP:COI in the article, Wikipedia articles should show balance, not fluff and pomp. On its own Globcal International is somewhat notable based on facts; it was in the US Courts for a trademark infringement case with the Honorable Order of Kentucky Colonels seeking millions of dollars in damages in 2020 and 2021 until the plaintiff recanted and dismissed all the allegations. It is not nearly as notable as its parent organization on similar issues 20 years ago, making national headlines in the US. 1Tr1BeLi7g8 ( talk) 18:44, 13 February 2022 (UTC)— 1Tr1BeLi7g8 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- Bbb23 ( talk) 19:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
On the face of it, this would obviously appear to be from a new account set up by Mr Wright in a last-ditch attempt to save the article from deletion rather than stubifying or merging. Proper links to the supposed facts mentioned here would disabuse me of this notion. Barry Wom ( talk) 20:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
I am unable to verify any of the supposed 'facts' contained in 1Tr1BeLi7g8's comment. As has been said before, and worth repeating now, just saying there are facts is not good enough. If people have them, why aren't they including them in the article? Wikipelli Talk 20:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
I don't like the article being deleted, I read lots of information and clearly see the consensus here to delete it, merge it or stubify it because of the notability of the references; simply put there are no solid news references that meet the notability guideline. I also found lots of similar articles marked as advertising which this article is not standing for a much longer time, I do not see any difference except User:Barry Wom not liking me. I have no objections to WP:STUBIFY but I am not sure if I am allowed to remove my own edits or do it myself? Guidance please, there is no clarity that Stubify or removing my edits will change anyone's opinion. Problemsmith ( talk) 23:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
I am not sure that removing a number of your edits would encourage people to keep the page. I think that the best thing to do would be to post some references on this cite that can then be examined for including in the page. Gusfriend ( talk) 04:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Agreed @ Problemsmith @ Gusfriend Starship SN20 ( talk) 20:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Problemsmith: "I respectfully deny any and all allegations of sockpuppetry at anytime on Wikipedia"
So it's simply a mere coincidence that new user 1Tr1BeLi7g8 signed up yesterday to comment on the deletion of the Globcal article and to begin drafting a new article on the parent organization, which was also founded by you? I mean, that's literally the only two contributions they've made. Subterfuge really isn't your strong point. Barry Wom ( talk) 09:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Please make this in a sockpuppetry discussion, not in an AFD discussion. T does not belong here @ Barry Wom Starship SN20 ( talk) 20:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. And move Televisa-Univision Inc. back to this title. Sandstein 08:21, 15 February 2022 (UTC) reply

TelevisaUnivision

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

Unnecessary page. Televisa-Univision Inc. is the only topic as Televisa (i.e. " TelevisaUnivision (Mexico)") never changed their name [17]. All these links and moves surged upon the confusion of editors. Maybe Televisa-Univision Inc. needs to be moved back to this page. (CC)  Tbhotch ™ 19:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Dark Descent

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES; found no suitable or reliable sources/reviews to pass WP:NEXIST in a WP:BEFORE and no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator ( talk) 19:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete finding basically nothing. Artw ( talk) 04:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete NO RS this fails WP:SIGCOV Deathlibrarian ( talk) 11:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Black Ox Orkestar. History remains under the redirect if further sources are eventually identified that might establish notability Star Mississippi 03:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Le Petit Théâtre de l'Absolu

Le Petit Théâtre de l'Absolu (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The sources don't seem to seem to support notability. There are two links: one is a self-published website by the co-founder and therefore not a reliable source. The other appears to be a Chicago Tribune article from 2001, but the link does not work. Cannot otherwise confirm notability. Singularity42 ( talk) 19:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Thank you. I don't cite Levine's website, the second reference comes from an academic journal dedicated to puppetry. Both that review and that of the Chicago Tribune attests to their participation in notable theatrical festivals. I located PDFs of both sources via academic library search, and will attempt to update the Chicago Tribute link. I will continue to search for press of the Israel/Palestine tour. Thenewobjective ( talk) 19:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
STRONG DELETE:If you look at the one good reference (not the on with pages no found or that is self published), it says nothing about this. I looked this up. Parts seem to be accurate (Black Ox Orkestar exists) and others don't (outside of Wikipedia, I can not find anything about a puppet theatre that toured through Israel and the West Bank in 2003 founded by European Jewish folk quartet of musicians). I don't know what this is. It could be orginal research, undercited, unnotable, or a hoax. I do not know. Regardless, this clearly does not belong on Wikipedia, and I don't see any way to fix an article that has nothing published on it, and with a subject that does not even seem to exist. I would most definetly vote delete, and look into the other mentions of this on Wikipedia to see who added them to see if this is a mistake orginal reasearch or a intentionally planned hoax. Starship SN20 ( talk) 21:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I don't see any sources in French in Google or GNews, it was likely a promotional page for them before they went away in 2005. Nothing notable at this point almost 20 yrs later. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete At best we have a single article about the troupe from the Chicago Tribune, everything else is either a trivial mention, or information directly from the creators of the troupe itself, which is not independent. I can't see where a single review from a single newspaper is WP:SIGCOV. -- Jayron 32 14:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Black Ox Orkestar, where it is mentioned in relation to its two founders, as an alternative to deletion. I've searched available databases in ProQuest and EBSCOhost and all I'm finding are event listings, not reviews or anything else in-depth on the troupe. The Chicago Tribune source ( ProQuest  419322824) is not about the subject—the troupe is only mentioned in passing. Same for the Puppetry Journal ( ProQuest  1797309)—it's only mentioned in passing and is not reviewed in a depth with which we could write an encyclopedia article without delving into original research. The Gabriel Levine book, written by a founder, is not independent of the subject. Despite a hearty effort, the topic does not have significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. ( ?) czar 03:19, 10 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    I don't see why we should make this a redirect. It never should have been created, it should be deleted. No reason to redirect as harldy anyone has heard of this. Even the creator said that they found it in the Black Ox Orkestar article here. No reason for a useless redirect Starship SN20 ( talk) 13:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    I linked the reason above: WP:ATD-R. Nominators are expected to puruse alternatives to deletion before coming to AfD and WP:Redirects are cheap. The standard on Wikipedia is to WP:Preserve content wherever reasonable and within policy. And re: the user talk conversation you linked, please do not WP:bite newcomers. They are the lifeblood of our editorship and we should be encouraging their good faith contributions, not calling them hoaxes. It is clear that this troupe existed—they just haven't generated enough press to sustain a dedicated article without delving into original research. I suggest retracting your statement to them. czar 03:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Black Ox Orkestar - a harmless and typical redirect, if ever someone is looking for this. Nfitz ( talk) 19:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect as above two comments. Additionally, I favour redirect over deletion because, while this troupe itself doesn't appear to meet notability standards, there's really nothing at all wrong with the content, which someone might want to pull out of the history later to use for a related article on Levine or something else related. -- asilvering ( talk) 05:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sailing at the 1932 Summer Olympics – Snowbird. per consensus. I'm really not sure why we're here. {u|Lugnuts}} you reverted the redirect, only to !vote redirect? Star Mississippi 03:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Hans Riedl

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

There is no evidence of notability. We lack any significant coverge. Searches have shown up no additional sources. Does not even come close to meeting our inclusion criteria for Olympians, which even if met is not a gaurantee of an article, the sports notability criteria make it clear that we need the subject to pass GNG to justify an article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG through lack of significant coverage, and I am not convinced that this is a sufficiently likely search term for a redirect to be appropriate. BilledMammal ( talk) 04:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply
I disagree - the name of any Olympian, medal-winning or not, is a plausible search term. Ingratis ( talk) 04:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply
There are a lot of plausible search terms; every name on this list, for example. However, not all of them are sufficiently plausible for a redirect to be useful, compared to the chance of confusing readers who are searching for similarly non-notable people. BilledMammal ( talk) 05:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Your comparison is not an accurate one. For the rest, it doesn't make much sense, but whatever you are saying doesn't seem to be covered by WP:R#DELETE and WP:ATD-R. For good measure I'll throw in WP:CHEAP (Yes, I know it's an essay, but it's a sensible one) and WP:ATD. Also, WP:R#KEEP, of which para 5 reads: "Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways." I find redirects from articles on non-medalling Olympians useful, and if I do, doubtless other readers will. Ingratis ( talk) 18:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply
I believe it is; can you explain why you disagree. And my position isn't that it won't be useful to individuals searching for the athlete, it is that it will cause issues for people who are not searching for the athlete, such as those searching for Peter Hans Riedl. BilledMammal ( talk) 04:15, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Briefly, I disagree because I see a significant difference between people who have never had articles and this, where there has been an article for years, so I think it desirable and helpful to leave a trail to it, now that there has been a change of wind direction inside the small inward-looking world that is too often Wikipedia. Thank you for clarifying the other point but it still makes no sense to me. I don't see any danger at all that anyone will confuse an Austrian sportsman called Hans born in 1911 with a German local politician in 2009 called Peter Hans, even if they do share a surname. If this were a real danger, however, then redirecting this article to the correct place would remove the confusion, not add to it. I can only repeat the links above, especially WP:ATD. I don't think I can say much more on the subject. Ingratis ( talk) 21:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC) reply
You are proposing a grandfather clause in Wikipedia where because one editor mass created a bunch of sub-stub articles we permanently give this some meaning and precedent. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and the fact that someone bothered creating an article on Wikipedia does not in any way indicate the subject is in any way notable, and should not be used as a major way of how we judge the notability of a subject, or the primary subject associated with a particular name. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC) reply
WP:ATD - there is no good reason here not to have a redirect. For the rest, I don't see it that way - I think Wikipedia should maintain some semblance of consistency - but I'm not prepared to extend this discussion any further, as it's already several times the length of the article. Ingratis ( talk) 00:00, 12 February 2022 (UTC) reply
No, I will add a bit more: this is an aspect of WP:SURPRISE, that if an article has been up for a long time, removing it without trace is baffling and inexplicable, not to mention bloody annoying, to a reader who has previously referred to it. (But who cares about readers so long as the editors are having fun.) Also, while it wouldn't be true to say that Wikipedian notability (as opposed to actual notability) changes with the weather, it does change, and these stubs have only recently been declared non-notable and double-plus-ungood, and your seemingly intense desire to eradicate them down to deleting them even as redirects, when viable redirect targets exist, as here, is unhelpfully revisionist. But WP:ATD is what principally counts. Ingratis ( talk) 04:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Chatura Kau

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

Short film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing of note was found in a BEFORE. DonaldD23 talk to me 18:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that Marcano's death does not meet the significant, sustained coverage and impacts required for an article to exist. Star Mississippi 03:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Death of Miya Marcano

Death of Miya Marcano (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BLP1E. Common occurance. Completely non-notable. scope_creep Talk 01:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 02:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 02:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Significant coverage about the death is available. In this specific case I see the nominator cites WP:BLP1E, it is true that Miya Marcano may not be notable per 1EVENT, but the death is, and in that specific case, Miya Marcano simply redirects to Death of Miya Marcano, as it already does now. The death of Miya Marcano has significant coverage both in the references already on the page and more I can find by searching, and meets WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Garnarblarnar ( talk) 04:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep, yes the article has significant coverage and is totally worthy of inclusion and I am in agreement with those who want to keep this article. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 03:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The underlying event that is basis for this article is completely common. A person goes missing every 90 seconds in the uk, a common occurence, with roughly 0.1% of those murdered, which is about 320-327 people a year. So that is a common occurence. The pattern for families who are in despair, they try and bring meaning into the thing, holding vigils, setup foundations and charity's, memorials and so on. Almost the same pattern. The paper's have a duty to report on it, but it is common crime, a common occurence everywhere on the planet and is completely non-notable. It is generic. A generic article. It fails WP:CRIME. scope_creep Talk 10:36, 2 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep TzarN64 ( talk) 15:37, 3 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For more time for policy-based input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Not every murder is notable. If it was, we'd have 20,000 articles in the US alone every year. This one, sadly, isn't. Black Kite (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not sustained coverage, note all the RS is dated to Sept/Oct 2021 and nothing past that date. WP:NOTNEWS. Deathlibrarian ( talk) 11:09, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as—unfortunately—WP:MILL and a lack of SIGCOV as suggested above. Also noting the paucity of at least one delete !vote. SN54129 13:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - this article has lots of good sources and is keep warranted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.102.255.40 ( talk) 20:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Routine coverage of a tragic event. Newsworthy, but not WP:N. Star Garnet ( talk) 22:44, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I don't see the difference between this article and any other article about a noteworthy disappearance and murder. It was widely reported on and is sourced properly with ample written information. solluxstark ( talk) 23:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Blablubbs ( talk) 20:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Ethereal Art

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

non-notable unreleased NFT nonsense with no coverage. SANTADICAE🎅 18:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Militia (film)

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES; I found only one review (needs two or more reviews/reliable sources in order to be eligible) in Rotten Tomatoes. I also found no suitable or reliable sources/reviews in a WP:BEFORE. The Film Creator ( talk) 16:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

This movie does definitely exist for real, I have watched it. And here are ca. 20 reviews on IMDB: [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grapetonix ( talk • contribs) 16:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete IMDb is not a reliable source, and we need to stop Wikipedia being an IMDb mirror. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    • For the record I am not convinced the Rotten Tomoratoes review would add towards it passing any notability. It literally says "cable drama obviously inspired by better films." It is a 1 sentence review. I do not think that when people created the "2 reviews" guideline they had this level of being reviewed in mind. I am starting to think we should never count reviews directly posted to Rotten Tomatoes toward the requisite number of reviews. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 StarCraft#Novelizations. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

StarCraft (WildStorm comics)

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

This article doesn't have, and never has had, any references. It doesn't appear as though it is notable enough for its own article, and I think it should probably be deleted. It could possibly be merged with StarCraft, or StarCraft (video game), if reliable enough sources were found. ―  Levi_OP Talk 15:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Nagindas Khandwal College of Commerce and Economics

Nagindas Khandwal College of Commerce and Economics (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination )
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The college article contains only one source that too is unreliable by the official website of UGC, some basic info and address. Thus making this article failing notability criteria and WP:GNG Pri2000 ( talk) 15:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Daily Wire#Podcasts and radio. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 ( HAPPY 2022) 15:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Candace (show)

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

I previously opened a WP:PROD and I am still concerned about the notability of this topic. I am not suggesting that Candace Owens or The Daily Wire are not notable, but that this show is not notable as an independent subject and does not WP:INHERIT notability from its host, network, or guests. The current sourcing is very poor in regards to coverage related to the show specifically. Most of the sources are only WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of the show and instead are heavily focused on Candance Owens, The Daily Wire, or Donald Trump. For example, the Forbes article only contains one sentence that mentions the show. Most of the sources don't mention the show at all. For instance, the New York Daily News, Newsweek, CNN, and The Washington Examiner sources all discuss related topics such as Candace Owens, The Daily Wire, and Trump but never even mention a show or podcast let alone provide in depth coverage of the show. Sources like the first and second references from The Hill as well as the Black Enterprise are largely WP:INTERVIEW content, which means that they are primary or not independent of the subject.

The reliability of the current sources is also quite concerning. I would expect to see a few sources that have made it to WP:RSP as "generally reliable" or a few sources that are not on RSP but appear reliable. However, the reliability of The Washington Examiner, WP:NEWSWEEK, and WP:FORBESCON are all in question at RSP and as such likely do not contribute to notability even if they did mention the show. The reliability of OutKick and Black Enterprise have not been evaluated at RSP/RSN as far as I can tell. For OutKick, I can't find anything about an editorial board, mission statement, or even a list of staff and the parent company is simply OutKick Media. The site is at the very least a clearly partisan source and the author of this particular article is included on the site's list of "contributors", which is often mentioned at WP:RSP as potentially unreliable ( WP:CONTRIBUTOR is relevant). The Black Enterprise source at least has an about page and a management staff page, however, I don't see "Cedric 'Big Ced' Thornton" listed as a member of the staff. The New York Daily News is at least listed at RSP as "generally reliable", but even that entry notes that editors "question the accuracy of its tabloid-style headlines" and the title in question is "Cardi B and Candace Owens threaten to sue each other in epic Twitter battle".

I also believe that WP:NOTNEWS is extremely pertinent. When looking for sources I find quite a few news stories about Trump and his stance on the covid-19 vaccine rather than discussion about what the show is, common topics of the show, how long an average episode is, how many episodes are there, what platforms is it available on, what are similar or related shows, or a review of the show as a whole. While reading the current sources it's unclear whether this is a podcast, radio show, television show, or only a youtube channel. Based on my searches for additional sources it appears that Trump's views on vaccines is more notable than this show. The whole interaction between Candace and Cardi B sounds like WP:NOTGOSSIP. I also think WP:ROUTINE is relevant considering the few sources that do discuss the show are mostly just announcing that the start of the show and Candace's move to The Daily Wire.

There was a merge discussion that ended in no consensus with very little evidence suggesting that the show is independently notable. I believe this topic is more suited for a section at both the articles for Candace Owens and The Daily Wire rather than an independent page. There has also been some discussion on the talk page regarding whether the content could be merged to Candace Owens or The Daily Wire. If any of the content is preserved I would suggest merging it to Candace Owens because the focus of the article is supposed to be on a show that she hosts and, given the name of the show, couldn't exist without her as the host. Whereas, The Daily Wire is the production company and most of the time news coverage of shows like this barely mention the production company, but The Daily Wire probably should have an entry for the show as well. TipsyElephant ( talk) 14:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply



The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Child in the Night

Child in the Night (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't find evidence that this meets WP:NFILM. No reviews or later critical commentary located on a search of Google, GBooks, Newspapers.com. PROD tag removed without improvement or comment. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 14:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • The review on RT is from "blu-ray.com", which as a website has none of the hallmarks of reliability, including an editorial policy or staff page. There's also no indication that the author, Brian Orndorf, is a "nationally-recognized critic" as required by WP:NFILM. Although he has "Tomatometer" status on RT, that in itself is not indicative of national recognition - hundreds of critics have this status, and it's granted on application. If he were a Top Critic, that would be different - that's a rigorously screened subset of Tomatometer critics, and only critics who are "well-established, influential, and prolific" are designated "Top Critics", so I would happily accept that as indicators of national recognition. But simply existing as a listed critic is insufficient. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The one review from Rotten Tomatoes does not add towards the multiple reviews required. We need reliable sources. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I found just enough coverage to justify a keep for this film. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per reviews added to article by Reader of the Pack. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep, per above.--Surv1v4l1st ╠ Talk║ Contribs╣ 23:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

St. Vincent Pallotti School

St. Vincent Pallotti School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school located in India. Article is unsourced, PROD removed by editor. RickinBaltimore ( talk) 13:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete Non Notable. Sources used are directories and sites for school admission, not WP:RS. Captain Jack Sparrow ( talk) 18:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete all the references in the article are either primary or trivial school directory listings. There's a couple of news articles out there that name drop the school, for instance one about the principal not admitting a kid with a pony tail, but none of them are any better then what's in the article. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 07:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Not notable, no real information about the school. ArdynOfTheAncients 8:57, 10 February 2022
  • Delete: Fails WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. - Hatchens ( talk) 13:05, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. While we're at nearly a numerical alignment in !votes, the deletes have more policy behind them that are not numbers and search engine results. No one is doubting that mentions exist, however consensus is that the sourcing present and available does not meet the requirements for CORPDEPTH. Star Mississippi 03:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC) reply

BeWelcome

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

Not notable per WP:NORG, and it doesn't meet WP:GNG. Each of the references is a trivial mention (one sentence or less out of a large article) except for one article in The Guardian, which may or may not be a puff piece. I looked for more sources before filing, and outside of some listicles where it's mentioned briefly among a dozen or so competitors, there's nothing out there. AlexEng( TALK) 10:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Oppose Per WP:SNG -- Geysirhead ( talk) 12:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Please clarify which part of the section WP:SNG you are basing your opposition on. The applicable SNG for BeWelcome is WP:NORG as I mentioned above. The subject does not meet WP:ORGCRIT, as I explained in the nomination. AlexEng( TALK) 17:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply
WP:EDITCON almost 15 years of existence and multiple languages, e.g., Talk:BeWelcome#Deletion nomination-- Geysirhead ( talk) 20:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Please clarify further. You linked an unrelated page, which has nothing to do with WP:SNG and nothing to do with our deletion policy. Are you implying that old articles cannot be deleted? I am struggling to find another interpretation of what you wrote. The 2008 AFD had at least two WP:COI editors participating, and it did not reveal anything more than the one non-trivial mention (The Guardian piece I mentioned above), which may or may not be promotional. This fails today's WP:NORG, regardless of what the 2008 AfD says. To this day, the aforementioned Guardian piece is still the only non-trivial reference. One would think that after 14 years, another piece would appear for a notable organization, but alas... AlexEng( TALK) 02:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The Guardian and about 100 papers on Google Scholar-- Geysirhead ( talk) 08:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Most of which appear to come no where near passing WP:SCHOLARSHIP for this topic. Unbh ( talk) 16:43, 1 February 2022 (UTC) reply
WP:CIR Systematic review is required for such statements.-- Geysirhead ( talk) 13:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Geysirhead:Please remember to comment on content, not contributors. I reviewed the results for "BeWelcome" on Google Scholar, and I did not find any sources that could be used for notability. Multiple papers came up because of typos, e.g. ... Society of Clinical Pathologists that cooperative sessions would bewelcome at their meetings to discuss medical electronics problems. The rest appear to be trivial mentions or otherwise user-generated content. For example, this paper discusses data provided by BeWelcome at some length, but it is a single author submitting to arXiv. There is no peer review process. This is a WP:PRIMARY source and WP:UGC for the purposes of WP:NORG, and these types of sources cannot be used to establish notability. If you manage to find something useful, please mention it here. AlexEng( TALK) 03:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC) reply
WP:CIR More careful and neutral search is required to find (Ossewaarde&Reijers,2017) and other peer-reviewed papers.-- Geysirhead ( talk) 20:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC) reply
I've addressed your repeated use of WP:CIR in a response to your message on my talk page. Here, I will address your citation of the Ossewaarde & Reijers paper. This is an anthropological research paper discussing in substance the concept of a digital commons. The authors use Wikipedia, Linux, Airbnb, Couchsurfing, and BeWelcome as examples of digital commons while discussing the illusion thereof. It's an interesting article, for sure, but it's not germane to this discussion of the notability of BeWelcome.org. If you manage to find some relevant papers, I'd be happy to read them as well. Thanks. AlexEng( TALK) 04:40, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply
This argumentation for deletion of Bewelcome sounds like What Have The Romans Ever Done For Us? by Monty Python. No source will ever be enough to convince. WP:Listen -- Geysirhead ( talk) 14:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom, trivial coverage only Unbh ( talk) 17:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply

keep. It is currently the second biggest Hospitality Exchange network and the biggest non-commercial one. Arved ( talk) 13:40, 2 February 2022 (UTC) reply

That claim is unsourced, and that points reinforces the deletion argument - there are not sufficient sources to justify this article. Unbh ( talk) 12:04, 3 February 2022 (UTC) reply
That logically false claim that an unsourced argument reinforces the deletion argument weakens the deletion argument.-- Geysirhead ( talk) 22:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC) reply
It's not logically false. It's pointing out that even such a straight forward claim can't aapparently be reliably sourced. That clearly undermines claims of notability. Unbh ( talk) 02:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Well I have been checking the Users numbers on all networks mentioned on Homestay#Services. CS: (12 or 14 Million https://about.couchsurfing.com/about/about-us/), BW 164.902( https://www.bewelcome.org/about/statistics), WS 166,424 https://www.warmshowers.org/country_count, TR 70.319 https://www.trustroots.org/statistics Servat (15k) , Pasaporto Servo (2293). So yes, since the user cleanup End of January WS is a little bigger than BW. But these numbers are so close to each other that they will soon change places again and we shouldn't delete the smaller one. Arved ( talk) 08:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Respectfully, this is just WP:BIGNUMBER and WP:NUMBER1, both of which are arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Regardless of how many users a site claims that it has (active or otherwise), notability is established by significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources. If there is no such coverage, then the subject generally does not require a standalone article. Some portions of it may be covered in a larger article, such as hospitality exchange. AlexEng( TALK) 09:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete There is no notable coverage cited, only very brief passsing mentions and primary sources. It doesn't meet the criteria for a wikipedia article CT55555 ( talk) 01:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC) reply
@ CT55555: read WP:REPEAT-- Geysirhead ( talk) 20:52, 3 February 2022 (UTC) reply
WP:REPEAT is about the same editor repeatedly making the same argument in a deletion discussion, not about other editors agreeing with or supporting that argument. Unbh ( talk) 02:39, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Subaculture Keep There are dozens on peer reviewed articles about BeWelcome;

  • - Tagiew, Rustam. "Bewelcome. org--a non-profit democratic hospex service set up for growth." arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.8700 (2014).
  • - Delhibabu, R., Ignatov, D., & Tagiew, R. Hospitality Exchange Services as a Source of Spatial and Social Data?.
  • - Schöpf, S. (2015). The commodification of the couch: A dialectical analysis of hospitality exchange platforms. tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 13(1), 11-34.
  • - O'Regan, M. (2017). Doing Things Differently: Opening Cracks in the Tourism System. Tvergastein: Interdisciplinary Journal of the Environment, (9), 24-33.

BeWelcome is also scanned by Alexa ( https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/bewelcome.org) Google Trends- https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=%2Fm%2F04gvxvf Articles - https://www.inputmag.com/features/rise-and-ruin-of-couchsurfing, https://www.bangkokpost.com/travel/275196/all-packed-up-and-many-places-to-go — Preceding unsigned comment added by ( talk • contribs) 10:30, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply

every website is scanned by Google and Alexa - that's got nothing to do with it. More trivial mentions in poor quality sources. Unbh ( talk) 11:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply


Subaculture If we delete on this basis, it would also mean the deletion of Warmshowers, trustroots and [ Hospitality Club, Servas etc etc. Is the biggest brand, the most notable brand?

Those are almost equally poor articles, and there's probably an AfD to be had on Trustroots if not the other two. Unbh ( talk) 11:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Subaculture Basically, this is one of the better sourced articles in the Category:Hospitality services. If we DELETE, we might as well as delete all articles under the series. BeWelcome is one of the few hospex sites with a large increase in numbers (4,000 members in 2008 to 180,000) in recent years and has been covered primarily in local European newspaper (Spanish, German etc). Just because of these articles are old sources, does not make them any less notable. — Preceding undated comment added 11:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Then provide the sources, rather than just saying they exist. User numbers are not relevant - per WP:BIGNUMBER as mentioned above — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unbh ( talk • contribs) 12:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Subaculture - Additional Sources /mentions

all three are trivial mentions in articles about the sharing economy in general. It's not enough for WP:NORG Unbh ( talk) 12:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply

They point to/ indicates the existence of multiple significant independent sources. Although yes, the mentions might contextualise larger topics. However, it indicates WP:NORG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subaculture ( talk • contribs) 12:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Subaculture The main sense of WP:NORG rules are related to (self-)promotion of small companies at Wikipedia. The sense is not to remove articles about valid organizations. BeWelcome has existed since 2007. The WP:NORG rules should be used as an excuse to remove articles about small organizations. Other sources (German national papers/ reliable sources): 

— Preceding 
unsigned comment added by 
Subaculture (
talk • 
contribs) 12:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
reply

Subaculture I will be adding some of these reliable sources to the entry over the coming week.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 12:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Comment, those are awful sources, even though the sites look good at first sight. (1) The one at Die Welt is by far the best, discussing over the course of several sentences how small BeWelcome is, compared to other such offerings. (2) Might be decent but it's a book I don't have; (3) Although I appreciate that WP can accept foreign-language sources, since BeWelcome claims to be globally-relevant, one wonders why it's necessary to resort to an Arabic-language version of a German publication to find something about it? (4) Mitteldeutschezeitung is a passing reference; (5) Netzwelt lists 35 other sites but doesn't even mention BeWelcome (as of today 7th Feb); (6) Stern is a single mention in passing. grouped together with another similar site; (7) Freie Honnefer is currently saying nothing except "Kleine Pause" which doesn't give much confidence in its solidity as a source. Based on that lot, I'm teetering on a delete here. I would not recommend including any of those (except possibly the book, if it's good) in the current article, as none contribute to the notability of BeWelcome, and only the first says anything meaningful whatsoever. Elemimele ( talk) 16:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Comment This is the problem with nearly all the references . They're passing mentions in bigger pieces about the sharing economy, and particularly Couchsurfing.com. It's mentoned as an aside, or briefly in listicles. Unbh ( talk) 05:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply


peterburk Keep Another article about hospitality exchange, which mentions the open-source nature of BeWelcome and localised Russian translation;

  • - Клинкова, Татьяна. "Путешествие без расходов: как пожить бесплатно в другой стране." https://sgpress.ru/news/331199 (2022).

Thank you editors for attempting to keep Wikipedia safe from misinformation and bias; those are worthy causes for moderators to be involved in! As for the BeWelcome community, however, the zeal for clearing out may adversely affect our current reputations of mutual support and encouragement. Under WP:TRIFECTA "Remain neutral", "Don't be a jerk", "Ignore all rules", we should focus on unity, rather than dividing ourselves about definitions (e.g. the meaning of "notable", or number of users: BeWelcome stats, 132,255 Wikipedians). Therefore this conversation would be better if we focus upon what is best for the open-source community together. Should any of the editors prefer to debate using a video call, there are regular online activities ( 5 upcoming) and 28 face-to-face gatherings to meet other BeWelcome members where all are welcome, especially newcomers.

This Wikipedia page for BeWelcome has sufficient internal and external links, with only 2 degrees of separation from Wikipedia itself. It is not a widowed or orphaned page, therefore deletion seems excessive in this case. Rather, I propose that the WP:DP suggestion " for lack of verifiability" is appropriate.
Comment This seems an unusual and very detailed contribution from a 5 edit sleeper account... Unbh ( talk) 06:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • I commented above, but having considered the issue, I'm going to plump for Delete: the business-model is notable, but all the references appear to be talking about the business model, not BeWelcome specifically, and therefore confirm the idea that we're good to have an article on the business model, but don't currently need one on BeWelcome. If, in future, it suddenly generates a flurry of independent, in-depth news coverage, things may change. We're an encyclopaedia, not a business-listing. Elemimele ( talk) 13:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I looked at all of the references that I could access and the vast majority were just name-checks - listing Bewelcome in a list of sharing services, but nothing really about the service, as in the NY Times piece which says only: "Private rentals through Airbnb have long been in the mainstream, and hospitality exchange sites like Couchsurfing and BeWelcome are thriving". The only one with more than that was the NYT piece [18] but on its own it doesn't rise to the level of NOTABILITY. I did a cursory web search, and also searched in Ebsco. In the former I found Bewelcome's own sites and a few mentions in travel web sites (pretty informal, not RS), and in the latter I only found Bewelcome's own press releases. I just don't see enough here, unless I overlooked something major. I'm willing to look at other sources if they are offered. Lamona ( talk) 04:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Elemimele: "business model" It is a non-profit communication and reputation plattform connecting people worldwide, a hospitality exchange service (hospex). It is not a business. The first really successfull hospex was HospitalityClub.org. But, for-profit Couchsurfing.com somehow became a synonym for hospitality exchange and makes money out of people's strange need to host people for free. The guests pay 50 bucks and safe money on hotels, because some people even pay to host them for free. Is it altruism, loneliness, whatever. If somebody talks about websites like Bewelcome, they say "Couchsurfing", because Bewelcome is very similar in its functionality to Couchsurfing.com. The special thing about Bewelcome is its non-profitness, which is expressed in a couple sentences. Together with Warmshowers.org, they are the biggest non-profit HopPex websites and provide data for research. The specialty about Warmshowers.org is not only non-profitness, but also the scope on cycle touring. That is why it appears more often. @ Lamona: "also searched in Ebsco" Ebsco does not find anything that Google misses. In addition to already mentioned papers:
  • Santos, Anderson. Citizens of the world: An autoethnography of couchsurfing and uncertainty reduction theory. Liberty University, 2014.
  • Лисеенко, А. А., & Ким, Т. М. (2017). Каучсёрфинг-альтернативный способ экономного путешествия по миру. In Исследование различных направлений современной науки (pp. 51-55).
  • Stoltenberg, Luise M. Authentizität im peer-to-peer Wohntourismus–Eine Untersuchung der Onlineplattformen Airbnb und Couchsurfing auf Grundlage einer Soziologie des Wohnens. Diss. Staats-und Universitätsbibliothek Hamburg Carl von Ossietzky, 2020.
  • Ossewaarde, Marinus, and Wessel Reijers. "The illusion of the digital commons:‘False consciousness’ in online alternative economies." Organization 24.5 (2017): 609-628.

-- Geysirhead ( talk) 23:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. I'm assuming all the sources are reliable and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization - but there's more requirements than that for establishing notability. 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. Not a single reference either mentioned above or in the article meet the criteria, most are name-checks which confirm the existence of the organization and nothing more. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing ++ 18:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Keepstrike repeated !vote At least, this peer-reviewed paper [19] provides in-depth analysis of data on and of Bewelcome.-- Geysirhead ( talk) 10:04, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The content This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. I'm assuming all the sources are reliable and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization - but there's more requirements than that for establishing ... is brazenly copy-pasted into multiple discussions. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trustroots, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Harvin, and so on.-- Geysirhead ( talk) 17:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Perhaps you should take a look at WP:BLUDGEON? For anyone interested, Geysirhead tried it on at my Talk page first. Seems to not like other editors !voting to delete this article and appears to not like my posting largely the same message (a template message?) about why articles fail NCORP. Textbook ad hominen. HighKing ++ 17:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Well that's just not true now is it? You can download a PDF of the paper from here. The paper claims an objective of "determining the factors influencing its growth" and the paper itself analyses Google search volumes and "conversions" between three different organizations including BeWelcome. Section V is entitled "Insights for BW" and again is entirely focused on providing an interpretation on Google search data and a data set of 68,320 profile entries provided to the researchers by the topic company. Its "insights" show, for example, that over 75% of signed-up "customers" have an email from one of Google, Microsoft or Yahoo and that 41.7% of customers indicated to be female and that nearly 5,000 customers never logged in after signing up (but doesn't determine why). In summary, this paper is an analysis of the companies website traffic and messaging. All very interesting. But two points - the first is that even if you are inclined to accept this reference as meeting NCORP criteria for establishing notability, NCORP requires "multiple" references that each meet the criteria so on its own it isn't enough. The second and most important is that it is misleading to say this is an in-depth analysis of BeWelcome. It isn't, at least for meeting WP:CORPDEPTH criteria because it is an analysis of website traffic primarily based on data provided by the topic organization itself. HighKing ++ 17:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Good faith reestablished! Thank you for the done work of reading! Minor correction: "website traffic primarily based on data provided by the topic organization itself" -> and secondary Google's data. I could not find WP:CORPDEPTH excluding peer-reviewed papers. Peer-reviewed papers by non-anonymous authors can based on anything, even on secret data from from hell. Anyway, together with the Gardian article, it satisfies "multiple". Thumbs up, you will surely win next time. Seriously, I am happy.-- Geysirhead ( talk) 20:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply
It seems you're having trouble understanding what is being said. CORPDEPTH requires deep or significant coverage which makes it possible to write more than a brief, incomplete stub about the topic organization. If the "peer reviewed" study was useful, then the useful information would appear in the article. Not only does the reference not appear, but I cannot see any possible useful in-depth information that could be included. As to the Guardian pieces, they clearly fail NCORP. The first is a brief mention, fails CORPDEPTH, plus relies on information from a "host" who is affiliated with the topic company. The second is a mention-in-passing towards the end of the article, fails CORPDEPTH. HighKing ++ 20:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

DAV Public School, Mahuda

DAV Public School, Mahuda (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP The Banner  talk 12:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by nom after sources found by DanCherek (non-admin closure) Onel5969 TT me 17:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Body Offering (novel)

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

While the Hindu article is a nice review of the book, could not find any others. Redirected to author, but ip insists on recreating the page. Not adverse to rescinding nom if someone finds more reviews. Onel5969 TT me 12:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Yout

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

Hoax article per talk page Dronebogus ( talk) 10:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 12:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete If you look at WP:NOT, it will tell you that this online encyclopedia is not a place to create hoaxes, even for articles should not be made that way. If one were to create a article, he or she would have to make sure to not place any hoaxes as it is considered a violation. -- Vaco98 ( talk) 17:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, the references to Norse and the Edda are meaningless as Finland was not a Norse country. Good catch. If you want a laugh, look at the very first version of the page. Geschichte ( talk) 12:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and send to WP:HOAXLIST as the article has existed since 23 August 2007, but was turned into this hoax bull on 11 November 2012 wizzito | say hello! 22:29, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn. ✗ plicit 12:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Option consommateurs

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

there do not appear to be any third party sources DGG ( talk ) 10:48, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Invalid nomination. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion is thataway. Stifle ( talk) 14:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

George Traut Austin

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

While I can somewhat understand having redirects to wiktionary (as dicdefs are out of scope, but can be useful for jargon), why would we redirect for biographies? Either a person is notable, and should have an article here; or they aren't notable, but then we shouldn't outsource to a different site with different standards. This seems like a backdoor mechanism to have biographies of people included without having to care about our policies. It also obscures what would otherwise be redlinks iff the person is notable. Fram ( talk) 10:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Also nominated for the same reason are all other similar pages:

  • Venue innapropriate - All of these pages are redirects ( soft redirects). Thus, the proper venue is redirects for discussion. That aside, you seem to be taking an issue with Template:Wikispecies redirect, for which the proper venue would be Templates for discussion. However, a discussion there regarding it quite a while back did not yield any fruit. Thus, I would suggest a wider community venue for the matter if desired. —  Godsy ( TALK CONT) 11:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    • No, this is not about the template, which seems more logically intended to be for species (just like the Wikt redirect are for words, not for lexicographers). The discussion you link to was from 2017, before any of the above redirects even existed. Fram ( talk) 11:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
      • @ Fram: I created the template, and that was not its intention. That aside, you did not address my main point. These are redirects. Not articles. Thus, this is clearly the wrong venue. —  Godsy ( TALK CONT) 11:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
        • No, the intention of the template was "This template is only for entries that currently exist on Wikispecies and which, due to previous re-creations, are likely to be re-created in unencyclopedic form. Do not place it on every possible title." None of the above entries seem to match that intention though. Fram ( talk) 11:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
          • Ostensibly, sure (that was copied from a guidance page years ago; e.g. documentation often lacks and falls out of date). Happy to explain the theory and reasoning behing these (and the template; along with a note on the nature and history of the template), in a proper venue. —  Godsy ( TALK CONT) 11:39, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
This does seem to be a RfD topic and not an AfD. That said, I agree with nom. Redirects like this should be pointed to articles on en.wiki. If there is no suitable article because someone is non-notable (not even in a list or related article) then we should not have that redirect pointing to another site. Gonnym ( talk) 11:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Creator of Dugdale's page here; he was on Special:WantedPages (or a similar page) in 2019, so I decided to create a soft redirect to Wikispecies rather than create a full article since I didn't know enough about him or his notability. To the nominator's point, though, I think that if soft redirects are inclusion-worthy for dicdefs that can be referenced throughout enwiki's pages, I think soft redirects to sister projects, which are not "other/different sites" pace nom and Gonnym, should be easily generalizable, especially if the biography is that of a specialist like Dugdale; biologists interested in learning more species by Dugdale can click on his link and be duly redirected, to give a use case. So, ultimately keep in general, though I haven't clicked on any specific nominees to verify individual usability. –  John M Wolfson ( talk •  contribs) 14:13, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gameplay. ✗ plicit 12:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Player (game)

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

I stumbled upon this after from ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Contestant. At first, I thought about proposing a merger to much better Gamer, but the sourced content is just a common-sense definition for the sentence that "most games require players" (really? and most? Well, I guess there are zero player games but sigh). There is also player (sport) that I redirected to Athlete. In summary, this article seems like a poor quality, essentially unreferenced stub fork of gamer and should redirect there. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If users believe a redirect to Contest, where the term is not mentioned, is worthwhile, they are free to create one. ✗ plicit 12:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Contestant

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

Dictionary definition. Mostly just gives examples of competitions. Also, completely unreferenced. ― Jochem van Hees ( talk) 09:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 12:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Mümtaz Turhan Social Sciences High School of Istanbul

Mümtaz Turhan Social Sciences High School of Istanbul (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article has been un-referenced since at least 2015, I couldn't find anything in a WP:BEFORE when I looked except a few trivial name drops in a couple of blogs, and high schools are not inherently notable. So I'm nominated this article for deletion. That said, I don't speak Turkish. So there could be references out there that I just missed due to not speaking the language. Adamant1 ( talk) 09:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 12:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

E.C.A. Elginkan Anadolu Lisesi

E.C.A. Elginkan Anadolu Lisesi (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article has been un-referenced since at least 2011, I couldn't find anything in a WP:BEFORE that works for notability, and high schools are not inherently notable. So I'm nominating this for deletion on the grounds that it fails WP:GNG and/or WP:NORG. Adamant1 ( talk) 08:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although numbers are similar on both sides, the keep arguments get less weight because we have "keep because she is notable", a misunderstanding of the mainly British usage of Hon Sec in a society, and zero weight for "keep because such and such a person created the article". Late calls to merge/redirect don't have much support, but as usual, anyone can request a WP:REFUND without reference to me if they propose to merge what little content is there. Stifle ( talk) 14:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Netta Ivory

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

Fails WP:GNG. Clarityfiend ( talk) 08:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • This is not exactly accurate - as best I could piece it together, in 1902 she co-founded the Scotland branch of the English organization, based in Edinburgh. In about 1905, she and her sister engineered the founding of a satelite Scottish branch in Aberdeen, and then in 1911, they reconfigured the Scottish branches into a new Scottish Society, still affiliated with the English organization but now within its own national structure, with the Edinburgh (formerly Scotland) branch leadership apparently becoming the overall national leadership. This is what eventually became the fully-independent OneKind, which chooses to trace its history to the 1911 reconfiguration engineered by the Ivorys. Thus, in a very real sense, she did 'co-found the organization' if one means OneKind. I still don't think that is enough to make her notable (founding what would eventually become a notable non-profit is not itself an independent notability-confering act, in my opinion), but what she did was more consequential than 'just founding a branch'. Agricolae ( talk) 01:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: I think she is notable as per WP:Notability, but still a weak keep is what I suggest. Itcouldbepossible Talk 15:38, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Perhaps you could be more specific - On what basis does she satisfy WP:Notablity? Agricolae ( talk) 16:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Leaning keep. Subject was respected enough in her field to be named honorary secretary of the organization in her eighties. BD2412 T 16:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    • That's obscene, how many tens of thousands of organizations are there that recognize their own members in all sorts of ways? That's not how notability is determined on Wikipedia. The source [25] is the barest possible passing mention. OneKind has has many leaders and honorees in its history, and they can be discussed in that article. Reywas92 Talk 17:39, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    • This is not an honor - in calling her 'honorary secretary' it is just reflecting that her role as secretary is not a formal one (for example, it is not a defined role in the society's charter). Agricolae ( talk) 19:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
      • No, "Honorary" just means "unpaid", ie a voluntary post, with no implication of it not being a formal post in the organisation's constitution. It distinguishes a volunteer, one of the leaders of the organisation, from a paid employee in the organisation's office. Pam D 08:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply
        • The point is the same - the title 'honorary secretary' is not an awarded honour. Agricolae ( talk) 16:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply
          • I'm aware of that, but it is one reported in the news coverage of the organization. BD2412 T 00:13, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
            • It is not reported in the news coverage of the organization that this was an honour. The cited coverage, after reporting the content of a press release from the organization, adds the sentence: "Netta Ivory is honorary secretary" simply parroting her own typical style of signature, as "Netta Ivory, Hon. Sec." That is no basis for notability. Agricolae ( talk) 02:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: urging some caution on the delete front: I can find more passing mention for her in historical newspapers than I've been able to find for many people from a similar time frame who have been saved at AfD by people with better historical newspaper-fu than me, so I strongly suspect there is more about her than I've been able to turn up. Also, her unmarried name is Ivory - I have no idea if she married or not, but if she did, she will almost certainly have changed her last name, complicating the search. I found several passing mentions in The Gentlewoman and Modern Life, enough to suggest to me that she would be notable by present-day standards, and she frequently turns up in hits in The Scotsman in the 1930s. -- asilvering ( talk) 18:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    Of course, after I say that I turn up a classified ad put out by her sister after her death that confirms that she did not change her name and probably did not marry; I've clarified her name in the article. Maybe someone else can do more. -- asilvering ( talk) 18:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    Most of the examples I am seeing are just the same single press release repeated in multiple papers. Agricolae ( talk) 19:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    That's my memory of the Scotsman coverage I found, but not the Gentlewoman and Modern Life stuff. But the latter is certainly not enough for a keep vote. To rephrase my point: I'm certain there are more sources I haven't found, but I'm not certain those sources would push her into a WP:GNG pass. With the sources we have so far she doesn't even look borderline. -- asilvering ( talk) 21:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. While others may argue about WP notability guidelines, I see that SlimVirgin created the article. That's sufficient validation for me. – S. Rich ( talk) 18:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    This is among the most worthless arguments I've ever seen at AFD. SlimVirgin wrote many admirable articles, but other creations I see lacking in notability include Nicolas Atwood (which could be merged with his website Bite Back), Claire Starozinski (sourced to a self-published book on bullfighting; could be merged with her organization Anti-Corrida Alliance), David Leppard, Jack Fischel (a basic resume, unclear if he meets WP:NPROF), André Tylee, Susan Finsen, Alexis Shotwell, Stanisław Kłodziński, Paul Lawrence Rose (zero independent sources), Gerry Mackie (just one independent source, a book review), and Angus Taylor (philosopher) (zero independent sources, no claim to pass NPROF). Not saying I'd AFD all these, but I'm sure the closing admin is smart enough to disregard a vote that does not bother to address the article itself. Reywas92 Talk 20:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
I'll admit I was floored by that comment too. The reason why most others focus on WP notability guidelines is because that is the deciding factor, not because you like someone who wrote the article. KoA ( talk) 02:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete 'Hon. Sec. of the Scottish Anti-Vivisection Society' is not a "well-known and significant award or honor" (WP:BIO) - it was a position that she seems to have occupied from the time the group was founded - in 1905 she was hon. secretary, her sister was hon. treasurer. Though the article makes it sound like a local branch officer was honored by the national organization, there is no distinction between the two - she was Hon. Sec. of the Scottish branch (located in Edinburgh), one of 38 Branches of the England-based society, and continued in that role when the Scottish branch became the semi-autonomous Scottish Society under the same leadership. And no, being secretary of such a society is insufficient, in and of itself, for notability. None of the sources give her more than passing mention: 1. is non-WP:RS and entirely non-selective (being dead is the sole criteria for inclusion); 2: simply has a one-sentence reference to the society that names her and Coleridge as founders (she isn't even subject of the sentence); 3. is reporting on a press release that she put out, and at the end mirrors her typical signature, 'Netta Ivory, Hon. Sec.', by stating that she is honorary secretary; 4. is basically the newsletter of the England-based organization reporting that she attended their national meeting, placing her in societal context as daughter of Lord Ivory, and telling us that she "favoured Brown with a white hat". Further searches turn up nothing both independent of the society and more substantial than a single sentence that she was a co-founder. That is not notability, not even close, no matter who created the page. Agricolae ( talk) 19:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I've been poking around on this one for a bit without commenting so far, but Agricolae summed it up better that I could. She only has two claims in the article: 1. Co-founder of a local branch society in Edinburgh, 2. getting the honorary secretary recognition. Neither really rise to any particular BLP notability. Stubs usually have key claims to fame that stick more than those, and as Agricolae mentioned, the other mentions are also just passing mention. KoA ( talk) 02:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    • At the risk of beating a dead horse: "getting the honorary secretary recognition" (emphasis added). Anyone who has been a member of a small organization knows that someone can be placed on a slate of officers, even for many years, for all kinds of reasons - they are good at that particular administrative skill/it is similar to what they do in professional life; not good at it, but everyone too polite/willing to 'go along to get along' to try to replace them; nobody else is willing to take it on; sheer inertia - let's just reappoint whoever has it now; cliques; etc. No notability-conferring 'recognition' can be implied from the fact that she held such a position. Agricolae ( talk) 15:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Yeah, it should be clear from what I'm mentioning, but I'll also making it doubly clear just in case that I agree with you that this isn't wiki-notability recognition, but more of a passing mention recognition. A title like that generally amounts to WP:PUFFERY if anyone actually tries to use it. KoA ( talk) 21:29, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with the page for the organization: OneKind. That organization's site confirms that the Ivory sisters were founders [26]. This can be confirmed with the independent sources on this page. Lamona ( talk) 04:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • REdirect to organisation. I do not believe that Scottish Anti-Vivisection Society will have had a large membership in her time, meaning that she was still NN when she died. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Peterkingiron, I'm not sure how the size of the organization affects her notability - can you explain your thinking? Also, do you think her role should or should not be added to the organization page? Thanks. Lamona ( talk) 20:35, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
My own opinion on this: If we go by WP:GNG, only independent coverage matters. However, there are all of those guidelines based on who 'can be presumed to be notable', to which RfD participants often add their own rules of thumb. Here we have seen argued that 'being named hon. sec. of a national-level organization makes her notable', but if that type of argument is to carry any weight at all, it must take into account the difference between being secretay of the Royal Scottish Geographical Society versus the Scottish Society for the Growing of Unusually-Shaped Vegetables. Size really does matter if one is making this kind of argument for notability. As to her incusion in the OneKind article, their page does include her in two of about 50 entries in their timeline, the first for the 1911 founding simply referring to 'the Ivory sisters', and the second reporting her death in 1949, but she is in no sense featured in their history to the level where it would be proportional to mention - plus we generally determine whether something is noteworthy based on coverage from outside the organization rather than their inherently-biased view, and there doesn't seem to be anyone outside the organization who cares (the only source we have isn't even talking about the same 'foundation', focussing on the founding of the Scottish branch rather than the subsequent founding fo the Scottish Society claimed as origin by the organization). And as if that wasn't enough to be getting on with, our OneKind article currently credits the Duchess of Hamilton with being the founder, apparently based on a BBC interview with her daughter-in-law. Agricolae ( talk) 01:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 2004 United States House of Representatives elections in New York. Stifle ( talk) 14:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Samara Barend

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

This individual was a political candidate back in 2004, and received the usual coverage that all political candidates receive. She does not seem to have received any significant coverage before or since then, meaning she fails WP:BLP1E. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 22:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply

As to the campaign, in addition to the coverage during the campaign, the Barend/Kuhl campaign was covered years after the 2004 campaign in two places: David Mark's 2007 book Going Dirty: The Art of Negative Campaigning, [6] and Tanya Melich's article in Heidi Hartmann's 2014 2005 edited book Gendering Politics and Policy. [7] DaffodilOcean ( talk) 17:02, 23 January 2022 (UTC) reply
I am changing to keep. The coverage of her 2004 campaign extends three years (David Mark's book) and ten years (The Melich article) after the campaign which is past standard campaign coverage. In addition she is recognized for her work in the period since the campaign. DaffodilOcean ( talk) 18:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
As I noted below, I now have access to more sources, and they have allowed me to add sources to the article. The additions show there is WP:SUSTAINED coverage of Barend, her work on the Interstate 86 is one example (with coverage in 1996, 1999 ,2000, and 2007) and the 2004 election is also sustained with coverage in 2005, 2006, and 2007. (Above I also corrected the year of the Melich article, that was my error). DaffodilOcean ( talk) 11:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0217654/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_2
  2. ^ O'Neal, Lydia (2017-05-30). "Foreign Firms Stand To Benefit From Trump Budget, Infrastructure Plans". International Business Times. Retrieved 2022-01-23. "It's definitely a new market environment," said Barend, whose group was the driving force behind legislative efforts to expand use of public-private partnerships. The Trump-backed plan to lift the cap on PABs [private activity bonds], she said, "was a nod to" her group's proposals.
  3. ^ "Samara Barend" (PDF). Women Builders Council. 2009. Retrieved January 23, 2022.
  4. ^ "Rising stars: Samara Barend" (PDF). The Bond Buyer. 2017. p. 26.
  5. ^ "City & State New York 02122018 by City & State - Issuu". issuu.com. February 12, 2018. p. 26. Retrieved 2022-01-23.
  6. ^ Mark, David (2007). Going Dirty: The Art of Negative Campaigning. Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 172–173. ISBN  978-0-7425-4501-4.
  7. ^ Melich, Tanya (2005-10-13). "From the Trenches: Attacking First-Time Women Candidates for Congress". Journal of Women, Politics & Policy. 27 (1–2): 85–107. doi: 10.1300/J501v27n01_06. ISSN  1554-477X.
  • Comment per WP:IBTIMES, There is consensus that the International Business Times is generally unreliable. Beccaynr ( talk) 18:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Good catch, I took out the quote from the page. DaffodilOcean ( talk) 19:02, 23 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Johnpacklambert - I respectfully disagree. Barend's campaign received five pages of coverage in the Hartmann 2005 book and two pages in David Mark's book. This makes the campaign itself a little unusual, which, combined with the coverage of her work on the I86 corridor, provides significant coverage of her work. Also, I have just received access to The Wikipedia Library (which is fantastic) and am in the process of adding more coverage of her work outside the 2004 campaign DaffodilOcean ( talk) 17:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 01:36, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Her work on Interstate 86 and being honored by the legislature, plus her subsequent work (all sourced here) seem significant enough. The divorce papers kerfluffle made the NY Times, so it wasn't just campaigning as usual. She also has been awarded various honors -- none of a global nature, but within her field. Lamona ( talk) 05:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 12:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Adnan Menderes Anadolu Lisesi

Adnan Menderes Anadolu Lisesi (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only reference in the article is a dead link to the schools website. I couldn't find anything in a WP:BEFORE that would work for notability either. Nor are high schools inherently notable. So I'm nominating this for deletion. Adamant1 ( talk) 08:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Rahul Singh (author)

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

Promotional content. Potentially failing WP:BIO. Many of the sources do not denote the notability of subject.

Also to note that this article has gone through the entire WP:DRAFTIFY process, with the article being moved to draftspace, and reverted by the author, and that the author had reverted draftification process twice on another article they had created, indicative that subsequent draftification here may be moot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertsky ( talk • contribs) 08:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

There are 18 sources; 7 sources are REFBOMB, trying to support the assertion that he lead a fundraiser. But from the sources, it seems that the fundraiser is a joint effort that's spread across multiple universities' alumni networks.

Notability as a guest lecturer is questionable as anyone can be invited as a guest lecturer as long the topic matches the subject matter a person is an expert/more experienced in.

There are three books listed in the bibliography, but it might as well be just two books, as Engineering to Ikigai and You know the glory, Not the story are the same book with different titles (as reveal in a source). There are a review for each book, which I don't think qualifies for notability under WP:AUTHOR: such work must have been the primary subject [sic] of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://milaap.org/fundraisers/SUMO?utm_source=shorturl No Crowdfund information page. Can be considered as primary source No Crowdfund information page. Can be considered as primary source No Nothing in the body text indicated that he led the team. ✘ No
https://www.iimnagpur.ac.in/news/guest-session-mr-rahul-singh/ Yes ~ Labelled as guest speaker. But written in promotional tone. Yes ~ Partial
https://www.iimb-vista.com/past-speakers Yes ? No just a list of previous speakers. Nothing to denote his notability. ✘ No
https://www.iimtrichy.ac.in/events/details/Nzk%3D/An_Atheist_Gets_the_Gita Yes Yes No Just an event notification. Nothing to indicate notability of the subject ✘ No
https://www.ntu.edu.sg/alumni/events/detail/2021/07/31/default-calendar/ntu-international-alumni-webinar-series-310721 Yes Yes No Just an event notification. Nothing to indicate notability of the subject ✘ No
https://gyanalogy.com/ No He runs the site. No No Homepage of the site. Nothing to indicate his notability. ✘ No
https://www.wionews.com/india-news/covid-19-alumni-of-singapore-universities-launch-crowdfunding-drive-for-oxygen-concentrators-to-india-382911 Yes Yes No Primarily on the fundraiser, as a group effort. ✘ No
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/major-international-food-company-partners-with-ihc-in-singapore-to-provide-crucial-covid-19-supplies-to-india/articleshow/82453756.cms?from=mdr Yes Yes No Primarily on the fundraiser, as a group effort. ✘ No
https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/others/indian-origin-alumni-of-singapore-univs-to-help-up-in-pandemic-times-101620224495135.html Yes Yes Primarily on the fundraiser, as a group effort. Not even mentioned by name ? Unknown
https://www.tamilmurasu.com.sg/tabla/singapore/helping-virus-hit-indians-breathe-again Yes Yes No Primarily on the fundraiser, as a group effort. ✘ No
https://nus.edu.sg/alumnet/thealumnus/issue-117/community/alumni-happenings/details/Mission-SUMO No Submission by the fundraising team. Promotional content ? Not sure what's the editorial process with regards to submissions by alumni No Primarily on the fundraiser, as a group effort. Not even mentioned by name ✘ No
https://www.ntu.edu.sg/alumni/alumni-stories-news/detail/extending-a-helping-hand-overseas Yes ? I see it as a cross between press release and a promotional content, and celebratory of an alumni involved in the project ~ Primarily on the fundraiser, as a group effort. This is written as he's sharing his perspective and involvement in the fundraising. ? Unknown
https://alumni.smu.edu.sg/news/2021/may/06/covid-19-alumni-singapore-universities-launch-crowdfunding-drive-oxygen Yes Yes No Repeat of source 7/wionews. ✘ No
https://rupapublications.co.in/books/an-atheist-gets-the-gita/ No Book listing No No ✘ No
https://www.tamilmurasu.com.sg/tabla/singapore/ancient-wisdom-simplified-modern-minds Yes Yes Yes Book review ✔ Yes
https://induspublishing.myshopmatic.com/products/engineering-to-ikigai-25-journeys-towards-purpose No Book listing No No ✘ No
https://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/12103 No Book listing No No ✘ No
https://www.tamilmurasu.com.sg/tabla/singapore/flying-high-thanks-sia-scholarships Yes Yes Yes Book review. In fact, this reveals that both Engineering to Ikigai and You know the glory, Not the story are the same books, just titled differently for the different national markets. ✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}.
– robertsky ( talk) 08:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – robertsky ( talk) 08:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. – robertsky ( talk) 08:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – robertsky ( talk) 08:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete agree with above analysis. Oaktree b ( talk) 18:48, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Agree with the above source analysis, except: iimnagpur does not provide significant coverage (hence doesn't contribute to GNG); current consensus on Economic Times is between generally unreliable and no consensus, per WP:TOI; the Hindustan Times piece also does not help with sigcov since it's doesn't even namecheck the subject; the NTU alumni story cannot be considered independent nor reliable from the subject (inherent interest in promoting alumni stories in a positive light), nor does it cover the subject in significant detail. The SMU alumni source shares this similar issue. The two book reviews do not cover the subject of the article in detail. My personal tally has all sources failing to contribute to the GNG, so this clearly fails WP:NBIO. I also don't think there have been multiple independent periodical articles or reviews of his work per WP:AUTHOR, because two is the bare minimum and I like to think we have higher standards, and also given that the author credited for both pictures in the book reviews is the subject of the article (it raises concerns about the independence of the pieces, due to the article's subject being given some choice over which picture to display for his "review" articles). Pilaz ( talk) 08:33, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ✗ plicit 12:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Khande Rao Holkar

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

There is no significant coverage about him in any reliable source. There is coverage about a person whose name is similar to him - Khanderao Holkar. But I can't find significant coverage about Khande Rao Holkar. The article is not notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Delete it because it doesn't have any reliable References. Delete it if better sources are not found. ThePremiumBoy ( talk) 08:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment - But there are no significant coverage about him anywhere in reliable sources. There should be atleast one reliable reference in the article that gives information about him. but the article doesn't even has a single reference. ThePremiumBoy ( talk) 12:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment According to WP:GNG, every article should have references with significant coverage in reliable sources, but this article does not even has a single reference. ThePremiumBoy ( talk) 09:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Ruler of the kingdom; clearly passes WP:NPOL. Sources are here [27] and Maratha Policy Towards Northern India stated " Khande Rao Holkar , the son of Malhar Holkar II , as the legal head of the Holkar House and he himself became the regent and virtual power in the State. VocalIndia ( talk) 06:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Necrothesp and @ ThePremiumBoy:, just enough?. Nomination should be withdrew. Thanks VocalIndia ( talk) 06:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment the nominator have confirmed as a sock and now blocked. VocalIndia ( talk) 06:51, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Robert McBain

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

Can't see any major credits that would go toward satisfying WP:NACTOR. About all I see is one of many actor interviews in the Shakespeare's Globe March 2001 research bulletin. [28] Clarityfiend ( talk) 07:40, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 12:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Lusíada University

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

As far as I can tell this article has only been referenced to a single source since it's creation in 2004 and the source doesn't even have anything to do with the place. Also when I did a WP:BEFORE all I could find was a few trivial name drops in articles about other things and a few school directories. Nothing that would constitute significant, in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources though. So I'm nominating the article for deletion. Adamant1 ( talk) 07:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

BitOasis

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

Fails WP:NCORP, Lacks WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORGIND. Possible WP:PROMO/ WP:COI. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens ( talk) 05:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kakegurui – Compulsive Gambler characters#Kirari Momobami. Liz Read! Talk! 05:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Kirari Momobami

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

The subject of the page might not be notable. All other Kakegurui characters are listed on the page List of Kakegurui – Compulsive Gambler characters, including the main character (Yumeko Jabami); the only thing that makes this subject stand out is due to cosplay, which I don't believe is enough of a reason to create a page. Vortex ( talk) 04:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Liz Read! Talk! 05:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Anil's Ghost

Anil's Ghost (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page consists entirely of original research and has been tagged as such since 2007. The novel by itself is not notable and doesn't merit its own article. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 04:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

If we're going to keep this (and it looks like we are), can we at least agree it needs to be substantially trimmed down? At this point most of the article consists of unsourced original research and more than a little editorializing. What if we stub it down to the plot and characters? I honestly don't see any way to source most of sections 1, 4, 5, 7, and 8 as they read more like a piece of lit crit than an encyclopedic entry. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 20:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Sure, go for it; I don't think anyone would object to that. DanCherek ( talk) 20:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

We appear to have reached a quick consensus to keep. In accordance w/ this discussion, I will be paring this article down to the essentials of plot, character, and that which has otherwise been properly sourced. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 20:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Oop, sorry in advance for your edit conflict. I was already at work on it when you posted this. I've left in some of the less-shaky OR and moved the maintenance tags down to it specifically. If you want to hack more out of it, that's fine. -- asilvering ( talk) 21:03, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This may possibly be the worst nomination I've ever seen of a Canadian article. Ignoring that surely any Ondaatje (one of the most famous current fiction writers in the nation) novel is going to easily meet GNG (he's only written 7 in the last half-century) and WP:NBOOK, the book is controversial, famous, and won a Giller Prize. I can't even being to comprehend how this came to be nominated. As to the content - this is definitely not the forum - WP:BeBold and improve the article. Generally, I'd WP:AGF, but this is the users sixth-ever Wikipedia edit - the previous edit, was a very sophisticated request to WP:Edit filter/False positives/Reports! Something seems odd here. Nfitz ( talk) 21:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Nfitz Bots have "false positive? report here!" links all the time. There's nothing sophisticated about following that link, looking at how others have responded, and writing up a report. -- asilvering ( talk) 22:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • He's a bot? Nfitz ( talk) 22:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
    Let me rephrase: when you are caught by an edit filter, they have a "false positive? report here!" link. Anyone who was acting in good faith and had reasonable competence would be able to then follow that link and explain themselves. Hardly sophisticated. In this case, the edit filter didn't just tag the user's edit history, but actually blocked the edit entirely - very hard not to notice. -- asilvering ( talk) 23:13, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Okay - I was having trouble figuring out what that entire thing was - I couldn't find any instructions, or clear definition of it! I guess it must be new - it never triggered when I was a newb. I'll strike the word "sophisticated" ... though I note from the first edit that the summaries were quite sophisticated. Nfitz ( talk) 00:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Um, hello? I just tried to close the discussion and somebody reverted my edit. I thought we all agreed this is an obvious keep. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 23:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Just Another Cringy Username We did. I think that user may have assumed your edit was incorrect or vandalism. Sorry: this is probably going to happen to you a lot at the beginning. You should probably go talk to that editor on their talk page to resolve this. -- asilvering ( talk) 23:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Discospinster: You reverted someone who was withdrawing their own AfD nomination (without any other delete !votes), was that a misclick? DanCherek ( talk) 23:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Yeah, really starting to feel unwelcome here. Sorry for breaking into the private clubhouse. You guys have fun w/ this article. I'm out. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 23:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Don't give up! Given how quickly - one might say uniquely, you've jumped in, and fully comprehend so many nuances of the project, then clearly you've a bright future ahead of you! Nfitz ( talk) 00:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Cleanup issues are a matter for the editing process, not the deletion process — but a widely-reviewed novel by one of Canada's most internationally famous writers, which won one of Canada's major notability-clinching literary awards, cannot possibly be deemed non-notable by any definition. If there's a problem with the content, then fix the content, and if there's a problem with the referencing, then fix the referencing — but there's a legitimately strong notability claim, and solid referencing most certainly does exist to improve the article with. Bearcat ( talk) 18:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The novel received several awards including Giller Prize and also significant coverage. The article clearly meets WP:NBOOK. 05:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC) Bigstory1 ( talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was draftify. ✗ plicit 12:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Sab Satrangi

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

Non-notable just-started TV (presumed-to-be-)series in same form that was declined at draft by User:FormalDude: "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of films). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia." DMacks ( talk) 04:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. DMacks ( talk) 04:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify, it's way WP:TOOSOON. There's useful information in the current article, if the subject turns out to attract enough attention to be notable. Otherwise, if the subject doesn't get written-about in the next six months, the draft can be deleted thereafter. Elemimele ( talk) 06:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify for now - Adding critical commentary would be extremely helpful, article creator needs to show more patience and work on existing drafts, not creating article after it was moved to draft space previously. Ravensfire ( talk) 18:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify with no comment on notability. I know making no comment on notability at an AfD is like being a food critic who reviews exclusively architecture, but the creator of the article needs to listen to FormalDude's suggestions and actually implement them - best to stop beating the horse before it becomes a carcass. casualdejekyll 23:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify, There's no need to delete the article THIS soon. I agree that I made a mistake by submitting the draft for review too soon but still deleting the article may not be a wise decision. If the topic doesn't turn out to be attractive, it can always be deleted later but for now, the article should be kept. I will correct my mistakes and add reliable sources to the article. Tech2009Girl ( talk), 8 February 2022 — Preceding undated comment added 02:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: I've indef CIR-blocked the article creator, who is also the only substantive contributor, for widespread problems (only one of which is re-creation of this arcticle against advice). DMacks ( talk) 15:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Liz Read! Talk! 05:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Vimosure

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

Overall looks and sounds like WP:promo. I don't really see why it would meet WP:GNG guidelines either. Signed, The4lines |||| ( Talk) ( Contributions) 04:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Liz Read! Talk! 05:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Aanchal Kumar

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

An out and out nondescript article. Fails WP:GNG, and WP:NACTOR. Lacks WP:SIGCOV, and WP:RS. Possible WP:PROMO/ WP:COI issues. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens ( talk) 03:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Every keep !vote other than the first is given very low weight for being "per X", but the suggestion that NACTOR has not been met was successfully refuted by MoviesandTelevisionFan. Stifle ( talk) 14:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Sally Wheeler

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

Same reasoning as 3 months ago - she had a 22 episode role in the 1998 series Two of a Kind but not much after- has 11 credits total per IMDb with not many if any being significant roles and not many resources aside from a Bustle article I found. Most of the other articles are just mentions of her. Doesn’t meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:26, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. Meets WP:GNG, with also meeting WP:NACTOR with her role in Two of a Kind and perhaps her stage performances too. MoviesandTelevisionFan ( talk) 15:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per above. Oaktree b ( talk) 16:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per above. The article needs a lot of clean-up for grammar, redundancies ("She did x. After x, she did y"), WP:OVERLINKing of place names, etc., and to properly link the names of the stage shows that she was in. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 16:31, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Ssilvers:, @ Oaktree b: - you consider 11 credits from the span of 1998-2014 significant enough for her own wiki page? Most of the roles are as minor characters that don’t get more than 1 episode. LADY LOTUS • TALK 21:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The 22 episodes of Two of a Kind and the other body of work along with other reliable sources seem to satisfy. She was also in a Lyrica commerical (per the Bustle article) in which the manufacturer spent several millions dollars to promote, she's probably more remembered from that these days. Oaktree b ( talk) 01:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Additional comment - the 4 Lakeside Ledger references used on her page and used to seem as "significant coverage" are from a newspaper in her hometown that does a single paragraph mention each article. I don't count that as significant as "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention". WP:NACTOR has "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows" - she had a 22 episode run on the only season of Two of a Kind but nothing passed that so the "multiple films and tv shows" doesn't apply. I will add that whatever the outcome of this is, I'll be fine with, I just want all facts to be known before a decision is made. :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, for the reasons of those who want to keep this article. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 22:15, 3 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to discuss the significance of the sourcing
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep as per the reasons above, seems to be superfluous nomination with no merit. article is well sourced and relevant.
TVHead ( talk) 15:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Comment: @ TVHead: - instead of just repeating others arguments, are you able to tell me how she does meet GNG and NACTOR? As I've said above but noone responded to, the 4 Lakeside Ledger references used on her page and used to seem as "significant coverage" are from a newspaper in her hometown that does a single paragraph mention each article. I don't count that as significant as "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention". WP:NACTOR "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows" - she had a 22 episode run on the only season of Two of a Kind but nothing passed that so the "multiple films and tv shows" doesn't apply. Would you care to explain your reason for the Keep vote? LADY LOTUS • TALK 16:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Lady Lotus my reasoning is above, and seems to be the consensus (again). Thanks for the reply. TVHead ( talk) 17:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
So you didn’t explain your reasoning (again) or respond to my question. Thanks. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:46, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
I'm sorry you disagree with the consensus (for the second time). However arguing with me over my own view isn't helpful. TVHead ( talk) 17:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
It’s just frustrating because noone will explain their vote. All youre saying is whatever the others arguments are instead of explaining how she meets GNG and NACTOR when I’ve pointed out that she doesn’t. Like if I’m wrong, I’m wrong and her page will stay and that’s fine but noone is responding to me and the points I’ve made. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:57, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Amirkhan Shavayev

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

A footballer who played for some lower-tier football clubs (hence, even if that would not be a reason to keep this, this footballer even fails the very loose suggestions of WP:NFOOTY regarding notability) and now [or at least, as of the last time the article was updated] holds the dubious (in terms of encyclopedic notability) distinction of playing for an amateur side... A search for proper reliable sources to meet WP:GNG does not yield any result whatsoever (besides this interview which looks to be about some lad in Crimea with the same name...), which would be quite astonishing for a "notable" 21st century footballer, even if they're from a non-English country.

Of course, the source in the article is (if you're not surprised!) nothing but a very mundane and all-inclusive database...

Hence, a very, very thorough fail of WP:GNG. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 03:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Liz Read! Talk! 05:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Lara Piper

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

I was not able to find sufficient in-depth coverage to indicate that the subject meets WP:NACTOR or WP:NARTIST. The sources in the article are social media, user-generated, or, in the case of the Chronicle article, do not mention her. There is virtually no coverage of her as an artist, not even trivial mentions, so that can be safely discarded as a potential source of notability. Her acting career was short-lived, and also did not produce much media interest. The best I could find were these two newspaper clips: [29] and [30], both from early 1990. The first isn't bad - a little "star spotlight" feature in a Texas paper, but the second link is just a short human-interest fluff piece about her emceeing a local student function. There was nothing after that. I don't think it's sufficient coverage to keep a BLP about someone whose public career is largely over and who is unlikely to generate new coverage. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 03:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Liz Read! Talk! 21:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Camille Stewart

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

Refs are mix of profiles and interviews. Fails WP:SIGCOV. WP:BLPPRIMARY. scope_creep Talk 00:24, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply

@ DaffodilOcean: Good work on updating the article, although the quotes in the references are deeply uncool and will need formatted properly at some point, if the article survives. It may survive yet. The Bloomberg reference is semi-decent but is covers five companies and would count only as a basic reference. The awards are non-notable. They are corporate awards and are junk. The Politico references I'll check them; they may be better. scope_creep Talk 17:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC) reply
I did not intend to cause problems with the quotes. Is the problem the existence of the quotes, or the formatting of the quotes? I thought it would be helpful to have the information in case people cannot access the sources. DaffodilOcean ( talk) 19:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC) reply
It is a simple fix. No worries. Forget about it. I'll fix it, if the article survives. scope_creep Talk 19:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Change from comment --> keep; I added in a few more citations, but minor pieces compared to my earlier additions. DaffodilOcean ( talk) 04:10, 7 February 2022 (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) 02:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep The sources confirm that she has held high-level positions in her field. There are enough sources that focus on her to meet NBIO. Lamona ( talk) 05:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. per sources provided during the discussion. I suggest further integration into the article, but that's not a matter for AfD. Star Mississippi 02:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Global Hotel Alliance

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

WP:PROMO article that doesn't show notability per what's required in WP:NCORP. The article is merely a document of the company's holdings and its loyalty program. A search for WP:RS comes up empty (just some chatter in hospitality industry trade press, nothing of broader social interest) because it's a private holding company. FalconK ( talk) 00:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Selection of three sources:
      1. Zámborský, Peter; Kruesi, Michael A. (2018-01-02). "Global Hotel Alliance: Strategy Discovery Moving East". SAGE Business Cases. SAGE Publishing. doi: 10.4135/9781526440044. Retrieved 2022-01-30.

        This case study has a length of 4,128 words. Here is the outline of the case study:

        1. Case
        2. Learning Outcomes
        3. Introduction
        4. GHA Background
        5. DISCOVERY Rewards Program
        6. Competitor Analysis
        7. Strategic Challenges Faced by the GHA
        8. Conclusion
        9. Discussion Questions
        10. Further Reading
        11. References
        The case study notes in the "Conclusion" section: "With the move of its headquarters from Geneva to Dubai, the GHA positioned itself well for the growing emerging markets in the Middle East, Africa, and the Asia-Pacific region. However, the alliance faced stiff competition from other hotel alliances with a global footprint, global hotel multinationals, and some strong local players in the luxury segment of the market where they competed. To overcome these strategic challenges, the GHA invested heavily in technology and marketing, trying to distinguish itself from competitors and provide value to its members and customers. The key decisions that the GHA management had to make related to its geographic positioning and marketing positioning in what has increasingly been a global marketplace for luxury hotels."
      2. Ind, Nicholas; Iglesias, Oriol (2016). Brand Desire: How to Create Consumer Involvement and Inspiration. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. pp. 86–87. ISBN  978-1-4729-2535-0. Retrieved 2022-01-30 – via Google Books.

        The book has a two-page section titled "Global Hotel Alliance and transformational leadership". The book notes: "GHA was established in 2004 as a way of sharing customers and services across different independent hotel brands. Today, there are thirty-two brands and over 500 luxury hotels and resorts. The initial thought about building the GHA brand was to mimic the way airline alliances were structured – encouraging customers to collect points as they stayed at hotels and to cross-sell different experiences. In the early days the challenge though was getting the individual hotel group CEOs to agree on a way forward – everyone had their own subjective view of what would work."

      3. Verbeke, Alain; Roberts, Robin E.; Delaney, Deborah; Zámborský, Peter; Enderwick, Peter; Nagar, Swati (2019). Contemporary International Business in the Asia-Pacific Region. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 231. ISBN  978-1-108-62068-0. Retrieved 2022-01-30 – via Google Books.

        The book has a "Spotlight" titled "The Global Hotel Alliance seeking growth in the East". The book notes: "Boutique hotel chains from the Asia-Pacific region, including Rydges and Antara, joined forces with other luxury hotels and formed the Global Hotel Alliance (GHA). The GHA represents over 34 brands with over 500 hotels and resorts operating in more than 76 countries. The alliance moved its headquarters from Geneva, Switzerland, to Dubai, United Arab Emirates in 2014. Thus, it positioned itself for growth in the East rather than focusing on Europe and America, where its competitors hailed from; ... Thirty-three per cent of GHA's hotels are located in the Asia-Pacific region, closely behind Europe (34 per cent) and ahead of the Middle East and Africa (20 per cent)."

    2. Additional sources:
      1. Chathoth, Prakash K. (2008). "Strategic alliances in the hospitality industry". In Olsen, Michael; Zhao, Jinlin (eds.). Handbook of Hospitality Strategic Management. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. p. 227. ISBN  978-0-08-045079-7. Retrieved 2022-01-30 – via Google Books.

        The book notes: "Yet another example of a marketing alliance that uses technology to create synergy is the Global Hotel Alliance. ... This alliance has brought together seven prominent hotel brands that include Dusit Hotels & Resorts; Kempinski Hotels; Landis Hotels & Resorts; Marco Polo Hotels; Omni Hotels; Pan Pacific Hotels and Resorts; and The Leela Palaces and Resorts. This also provides the allying firms with a more global access to markets while at the same time providing customers with a one-stop internet site that provides customers and travel agents with attractive prices and access to all member hotels' products, while providing them access to airline products as well."

      2. Gong, Yeming (2013). Global Operations Strategy: Fundamentals and Practice. Berlin: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. p. 196. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-36708-3. ISBN  978-3-642-36707-6. ISSN  2192-4333. Retrieved 2022-01-30 – via Google Books.

        The book notes: "The hospitality industry has also built a number of alliances. For example, the "global hotel alliance" (GHA) is a collection of 14 luxury regional hotel brands with 300 hotels, palaces and resorts in 52 countries around the world. An important RM tool of GHA is "GHA Discovery", a loyalty program rewarding travelers with "local experiences" to offer members access to a large selection of adventures not easily available to the general public, since GHA believes that rewarding members with memorable experiences is more valuable than collecting points. GHA Discovery also provides general hotel benefits such as complimentary Internet, early check-in, late check-out, upgrades, and guaranteed availability."

      3. Evans, Nigel (2015) [2003]. Strategic Management for Tourism, Hospitality and Events (2 ed.). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. p. 418. ISBN  978-0-415-83727-9. Retrieved 2022-01-30 – via Google Books.

        The book notes: "Global Hotel Alliance (GHA) brings together mainly mid-to-upscale brands from around the world. Unlike Best Western it represents smaller chains of hotels which maintain their individual branding. The consortium represents brands such as ParkRoyal, Pan Pacific and Marco Polo which have properties across Asia Pacific; and Kempinski Hotels, a luxury brand with properties across Europe, Asia and Africa and Leela, which is represented at key locations across India."

      4. Sharkey, Jon (2004-03-16). "Business Travel: On the Road; At Upscale Hotels, Women Have Power". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2022-01-30. Retrieved 2022-01-30.

        The article notes: "Skeptical industry executives say it is not at all certain that a partnership like Global Hotel Alliance, comprising highly individualized independent regional companies, each run by strong-willed executives, can cooperate and compete persuasively against the luxury giants for the valued international traveler. ... All four of the participating chains, which have a total of 235 upscale hotels mostly in the boutique and midsize categories, already market personalized services, of course."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Global Hotel Alliance to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 09:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Maybe in that case we should replace the article completely with material from the case studies. I'm surprised I didn't uncover those. FalconK ( talk) 21:14, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The keep argument may be mistakenly worded, but it seems to indicate that an analysis of the sources was not performed. Therefore a more thorough look should be made.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 02:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep The sources shared by Cunard establish notability. NemesisAT ( talk) 14:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep with the new sources. Gusfriend ( talk) 09:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Maritime Matters

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

Maritime Matters is a user-generated blog that fails WP:WEBCRIT. The one reference found that specifically mentions it also describes it as a blog [ here]. While it appears that the writer makes an effort to ensure accuracy, there is no editorial oversight. The web site owner voluntarily discontinued it about two years ago and the pages can only be found through the wayback machine. The domain appears abandoned. The website doesn't inherit any nobability that the individual contributors might have by their own merit. Blue Riband► 01:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as AfD was created in error. (non-admin closure) – NJD-DE ( talk) 00:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

The Daily Wire

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

I meant to open an AfD for Candace (show) not The Daily Wire. I accidentally clicked on a wikilink to The Daily Wire beforehand or had multiple tabs open. I'm not sure what happened, but I'm asking for assistance in remedying this huge mistake at the help desk. Sorry for any disruption in editing. TipsyElephant ( talk) 00:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

I previously opened a WP:PROD and I am still concerned about the notability of this topic. I am not suggesting that Candace Owens or The Daily Wire are not notable, but that this show is not notable as an independent subject and does not WP:INHERIT notability from its host, network, or guests. The current sourcing is very poor in regards to coverage related to the show specifically. Most of the sources are only WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of the show and instead are heavily focused on Candance Owens, The Daily Wire, or Donald Trump. For example, the Forbes article only contains one sentence that mentions the show. Most of the sources don't mention the show at all. For instance, the New York Daily News, Newsweek, CNN, and The Washington Examiner sources all discuss related topics such as Candace Owens, The Daily Wire, and Trump but never even mention a show or podcast let alone provide in depth coverage of the show. Sources like the first and second references from The Hill as well as the Black Enterprise are largely WP:INTERVIEW content, which means that they are primary or not independent of the subject.

The reliability of the current sources is also quite concerning. I would expect to see a few sources that have made it to WP:RSP as "generally reliable" or a few sources that are not on RSP but appear reliable. However, the reliability of The Washington Examiner, WP:NEWSWEEK, and WP:FORBESCON are all in question at RSP and as such likely do not contribute to notability even if they did mention the show. The reliability of OutKick and Black Enterprise have not been evaluated at RSP/RSN as far as I can tell. For OutKick, I can't find anything about an editorial board, mission statement, or even a list of staff and the parent company is simply OutKick Media. The site is at the very least a clearly partisan source and the author of this particular article is included on the site's list of "contributors", which is often mentioned at WP:RSP as potentially unreliable ( WP:CONTRIBUTOR is relevant). The Black Enterprise source at least has an about page and a management staff page, however, I don't see "Cedric 'Big Ced' Thornton" listed as a member of the staff. The New York Daily News is at least listed at RSP as "generally reliable", but even that entry notes that editors "question the accuracy of its tabloid-style headlines" and the title in question is "Cardi B and Candace Owens threaten to sue each other in epic Twitter battle".

I also believe that WP:NOTNEWS is extremely pertinent. When looking for sources I find quite a few news stories about Trump and his stance on the covid-19 vaccine rather than discussion about what the show is, common topics of the show, how long an average episode is, how many episodes are there, what platforms is it available on, what are similar or related shows, or a review of the show as a whole. While reading the current sources it's unclear whether this is a podcast, radio show, television show, or only a youtube channel. Based on my searches for additional sources it appears that Trump's views on vaccines is more notable than this show. The whole interaction between Candace and Cardi B sounds like WP:NOTGOSSIP. I also think WP:ROUTINE is relevant considering the few sources that do discuss the show are mostly just announcing that the start of the show and Candace's move to The Daily Wire.

There was a merge discussion that ended in no consensus with very little evidence suggesting that the show is independently notable. I believe this topic is more suited for a section at both the articles for Candace Owens and The Daily Wire rather than an independent page. There has also been some discussion on the talk page regarding whether the content could be merged to Candace Owens or The Daily Wire. If any of the content is preserved I would suggest merging it to Candace Owens because the focus of the article is supposed to be on a show that she hosts and, given the name of the show, couldn't exist without her as the host. Whereas, The Daily Wire is the production company and most of the time news coverage of shows like this barely mention the production company, but The Daily Wire probably should have an entry for the show as well. TipsyElephant ( talk) 00:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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/2022_February_7&oldid=1071927685"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE