Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 07 September 09 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. If an editor wants to work on this article in Draft space, let me know. Liz Read! Talk! 23:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Asif Ahmed Khan

Asif Ahmed Khan (  | 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'm not finding anything to substantiate the notability of this actor who just emerged this year. It's definitely WP:TOOSOON, but perhaps in a few years there will be enough SIGCOV or notable awards to sustain an article. That the two films he was in were by "Nationally award winning directors" does not transfer to him by association. Interestingly, there is also an identical draft of this article sitting in AfC [1]. Bringing it here to the community to decide whether to to retain the article in the encyclopedia. Netherzone ( talk) 23:49, 8 September 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! 07:26, 10 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Hartin's Hotel

Hartin's Hotel (  | 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)

Article fails WP:NBUILD. Despite the significant research, the article is mainly based on primary sources. The secondary source newspaper article is somewhat trivial in nature and the buildings inclusion on the city protection register doesn't seem enough to satisfy notability requirements alone. Quick search online doesn't bring up any further info and I feel it's say to say the subject is not significant. 59abcd ( talk) 23:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep it's designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, making it notable. Proving it is a pain. Ottawa doesn't seem to have an easily accessible Heritage Register as some/most municipalities do. Look up the address using geoOttawa [2]. From the Layer List, select Planning - Heritage - Individually Designated Properties (Part IV). Individual designations are indicated with a purple triangle. 1993 Robertson Road is listed with the purple triangle. I have experience using/looking up buildings in municipal heritage registers for articles here in wiki, so this is right up my alley. I'll email the city for a copy of the by-law, then we can confirm with exact details. This should contain the reasons for designation (historic information) and the date of designation. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    It would be listed somewhere, in the Ontario Heritage Act register, the CRHP (Canadian Register of Historic Places) or at least in the City of Ottawa's register, but listing it in these places seems to be voluntary or very far down on the list of priorities for local municipalities. the City of Toronto has a wonderful website you can use, Ottawa is at the other end of this scale, where you have to pull teeth to find what you are looking for. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Appears to qualify as a heritage-listed building per WP:GEOFEAT. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment City of Ottawa has sent me confirmation. It was designated under Part IV in 2015, with the designation limited to the outside, stone and timber portions of the building, not including the recent additions or the interior of the structure. I'll update the article in a bit. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:32, 9 September 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! 08:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Roshan Bikram Thakuri

Roshan Bikram Thakuri (  | 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 a notable Film director. Most of the sources which are provided are non-rs. And the international film award which is mentioned here [3] is about the film not directly to the director and the director doesn't meet WP:BIO and is WP:TOOSOON to be here on Wikipedia. DIVINE ( talk) 18:52, 18 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Oppose Dear DIVINE, thanks for bring in the issues here, I reviewed and checked all the references on the base of your aforementioned statement to delete the articles. Everything seems up to date with reliable information backed by references. Could you rather mention what need to be improved and add apart from nominating here for deletion. Every contribution matters, I will appreciate yours. Also, please make sure it's not a aftermath of these conversations backed by your personal outburst. Thanks - Nabin K. Sapkota ( talk) 21:31, 18 August 2022 (UTC) reply
It is the deletion discussion and the sources that you have provided on the articles don't meet WP:RS. Even before XFD, I tried to find some sources in either the Nepali language or English and didn't find any that supported the notability of the director per WP:DIRECTOR. If you do have some sources then you are free to add to the article and remove Nnn-RsSPR kinds of stuff too. DIVINE ( talk) 22:12, 18 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 21:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Would like to hear some more opinions on this one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. The main problem with the sources cited in the article is that although they briefly mention Thakuri, they don't discuss him "directly and in detail" as the GNG requires. (Some are also of dubious reliability, as noted above.) My searches didn't find any coverage that would move the needle in terms of notability, and I'm not seeing a strong argument that WP:NCREATIVE is met, so he doesn't seem to be notable at this time, though that may of course change in the future. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 06:01, 9 September 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! 22:43, 15 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Matthew Moss (footballer)

Matthew Moss (footballer) (  | 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 lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 22:33, 8 September 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 Redbank, Queensland#Amenities. Liz Read! Talk! 21:37, 15 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Redbank Plaza

AfDs for this article:
Redbank Plaza (  | 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 declined the PROD since it was deleted at AfD, but the concerns raised there still remain and a BEFORE shows no coverage to indicate this is a notable mall. It exists, but this is a borderline A7 if not for the prior AfD Star Mississippi 22:08, 8 September 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. Vanamonde ( Talk) 11:21, 16 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Cones Lake

AfDs for this article:
Cones Lake (  | 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 is/was a small private artificial lake or pond. There is insufficient coverage to meet GNG. All sources are just maps or databases. The article was not deleted in the prior AFD due to confusion with Bass Lake (Watauga County, North Carolina), also known as Cone Lake, which had not been written at the time. Since then, the other article was developed, partially with sources identified during the first AFD of this article. After sorting out which sources were about which lake, there is not enough left to show this one is notable. MB 22:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep: I disagree with your categorization of Cone lake being attributed to Bass Lake instead of this lake. The publications that are cited in the article have no indication that they are discussing Bass Lake instead of Cones Lake, and if we were to make assumptions, it seems more likely that Cones lake was also referred to as Cone lake. Also, the lake is on land owned by a land trust, and was once open to the public. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and although this lake is no longer owned publicly does not mean it should not have its own page. KyleGorczynski ( talk) 22:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply
I don't understand what you are saying. The sources in this article are about Cones Lakes. There are three maps and a database. We only have articles on topics that have in-depth coverage and this is not in-depth coverage. The other sources I mentioned are not used in this article, but they were mistakenly used in the prior AFD. MB 22:42, 8 September 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! 20:31, 15 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Ilnur Gabdullin

Ilnur Gabdullin (  | 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)

Another semi-pro footballer that isn't even close to passing WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Searches in Google News and DDG failed to yield anything significant. Does not seem to meet any current guideline and would have even failed under the old guidelines WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:FOOTYN. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:48, 8 September 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 merge to Abdul Majeed Khan Achakzai. Liz Read! Talk! 20:30, 15 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Zarghoon road killing

Zarghoon road killing (  | 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:NOTNEWS. –– FormalDude (talk) 20:19, 8 September 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. Wrong venue: please use the Requested moves process to rename the article if desired. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 13:10, 15 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Kids these days

Kids these days (  | 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)

Inadequate terminology in title. I do not think this article has a good title, and it might as well be replaced with other terms, like Criticism of Gen Z. Moreover, the article's a stub. BrightSunMan ( talk) 19:58, 8 September 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. Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Himanee Bhatia

Himanee Bhatia (  | 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)

Contested draftification. Negligible improvement since it was returned to draft. Fails WP:NACTOR, fails WP:NAUTHOR 🇺🇦  FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 hindustanitimes.com An interview No Yes Yes No
2 newindianexpress.com Announcement of a film No Yes Yes No
3 timesofindia.com An interview No Yes No No
4 lehren.com Promotional piece about one of her books No Yes Yes No
5 amazon.in Page for one of her poetry books No No N/A No
6 mid-day.com Another interview, about her career No Yes Maybe No
7 outlookindia.com Blocked by antimalware
8 zeenews.india.com Review of Decoupled Yes Not about subject Yes No
9 indianewengland.com Another interview No Yes Probably No
10 tribuneindia.com And another interview No Yes Yes No
11 cinemaexpress.com An interview about one of her films No Yes Yes No
12 glamsham.com Yet another interview No Yes Yes No
13 perfectwomanmagainzeandevents.com Blurb about a phony award. No Yes Probably not No

Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:03, 9 September 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 11:12, 11 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Gapochka

AfDs for this article:
Gapochka (  | 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. Half-finished article. Been on the cat:nn list for 10+ years. Never been referenced. Never been updated. scope_creep Talk 15:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:37, 8 September 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, and I was close to declaring this an outright "keep". By numbers, the discussion is roughly evenly divided. The keep side has pointed to some coverage in publications like the New Yorker, there is merit to that argument. Several of the comments on the "delete" side, Oaktree b being an exception, were rather sparse since they just asserted that a notability guideline wasn't passed. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC) reply

David Friedberg

David Friedberg (  | 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)

Unable to locate WP:THREE in the article. Sources only has passing mentions about the subject. DavidEfraim ( talk) 14:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC) Struck for being a sockpuppet. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 04:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep Subject was featured prominently (not "passing mention") in two New Yorker articles, one CNBC article, and controversially sold his previous company for $1.1B; subject co-hosts a top business and investing podcast. Henrytudoreight ( talk) 23:18, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete in particular, patents aren't used for notability here, and having a photo on Wikimedia Commons is as simple as uploading one, it does nothing for the notability criteria here. The article is mostly passing mentions in sources; linked in doesn't help support notability. Oaktree b ( talk) 16:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    Keep Again, subject was featured prominently (not "passing mention") in two New Yorker articles (three if you count a lengthy rebuttal from the reporter), prominently in one CNBC article, and controversially sold previous company for $1.1B; subject co-hosts a top business and investing podcast; has more than 100K twitter followers. Consider removing LinkedIn link. Henrytudoreight ( talk) 02:36, 3 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    Struck bolded keep as a duplicate. Comment still stands. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 19:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    Keep Again, subject is notable in the entrepreneur, investor, and food science community. "Notable" being evidenced by significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic". Having 32 patents is notable. Having sold a company for over $1B is notable. Having been a capital investor in 5 early stage companies in the past and having 5 companies in his current portfolio is notable. Having a photo on Wikimedia Commons is not as simple as uploading one. It must have the appropriate license to be allowed. Subject was a guest lecturer at the Stanford entrepreneur program. Subject was also prominently the focus of two Wall Street Journal articles. Enik the Sleestak ( talk) 13:30, 3 September 2022 (UTC) reply
You can't "vote" more than once so I have struck your second Keep. Feel free to comment. Liz Read! Talk! 05:40, 4 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Comment The WSJ articles might help support notability, but the paywall won't let me in. Uploading a photo to Commons with the proper license is something anyone can do, it doesn't help GNG here. Patents and twitter followers are a nice addition to an article, but are gravy. We need RS or this isn't much of an article. Selling a company for a gazillion dollars is noteworthy, but not wiki notable without sourcing about the subject of the article. What I can find are press announcements and routine funding press releases. Sure he was a guest lecturer, show us the RS so we can beef up the article and possibly keep it. Oaktree b ( talk) 03:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC) reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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! 20:24, 15 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Arie Trouw

Arie Trouw (  | 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)

Nothing indicates notability and there is no significant coverage. Fails GNG DavidEfraim ( talk) 13:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC) (sock strike) Liz Read! Talk! 06:18, 3 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:26, 8 September 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! 08:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC) reply

David Hartin

David Hartin (  | 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)

Article fails WP:BIO. The only mention of the individual in question within secondary sources seems to be regarding the rebuilding of a relatively insignificant local hotel. All other information in the article is based on primary sources and of very little notability. 59abcd ( talk) 11:24, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:23, 8 September 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, obviously. Sam Walton ( talk) 18:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Death of Elizabeth II

Death of Elizabeth II (  | 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)

Article fits significantly better as a section of the main Queen Elizabeth II Article. This article is not significantly different from parts of the main article. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 18:09, 8 September 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 delete. Deleted per G5 - creator was a CU-confirmed sock of a blocked user. Girth Summit (blether) 18:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Nagesh Koirala

Nagesh Koirala (  | 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)

Previously deleted via PROD; non-notable local politician, fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Curbon7 ( talk) 18:00, 8 September 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! 20:21, 15 September 2022 (UTC) reply

CoryLavel

CoryLavel (  | 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)

BostonMensa ( talk) 17:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply

COI, INABLE TO FIND sufficient independent sources BostonMensa ( talk) 17:47, 8 September 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. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 17:34, 15 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Hugo Eyre

Hugo Eyre (  | 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)

Former professional player with two appearances in the Segunda División of Spain and, apart from that, just an amateur career. Most recent report is him playing in Sicilian amateur regional football at Virtus Ispica and Pro Favara (fifth tier) [6]. All I could find is just transfer reports, stats pages and little more [7] which makes me think he fails WP:GNG. Angelo ( talk) 16:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply

@ MarchOfTheGreyhounds:, I found [14]. Also, one of the sources above is from Marca, a nationwide newspaper. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk) 15:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC) reply
Nice work, Das. You've convinced me to change my !vote. MarchOfTheGreyhounds ( talk) 18:35, 9 September 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! 07:29, 10 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Alabama Motorsports Park

Alabama Motorsports Park (  | 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)

Proposed sports venue that was never built. Only significant coverage comes from the venue's own website and a few articles in the local paper. Hirolovesswords ( talk) 14:10, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply

There's a few more wider articles on it:
ESPN - https://www.espn.co.uk/racing/news/story?id=2584548&seriesId=2
Road Racing World - https://www.roadracingworld.com/news/proposed-alabama-motorsports-park-to-include-35-mile-road-course/
However appreciate the broadness of information may not be enough.
Hopscotch27 ( talk) 20:00, 4 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs a GNG-based source search/evaluation. Reminder that things that do not physically exist yet can pass the GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 16:24, 8 September 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 11:15, 13 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Computer Hearts

Computer Hearts (  | 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)

Article about a short film, not properly referenced as passing WP:NFO. The notability claim here is that it won the Audience Choice award at a minor film festival, sourced only to that festival's own self-published website about itself -- but our notability criteria for films only confer notability based on awards from major, internationally prominent film festivals (TIFF, Cannes, Berlin, Sundance, Venice, etc.) whose awards get covered by reliable sources as news, and a non-notable award that doesn't get media coverage cannot make its winners notable for winning it.
But the rest of the referencing here is to WordPress blogs (many of which are defunct) rather than WP:GNG-worthy sources, which means it can't be claimed to pass the notability criteria for films on "critical attention" grounds either. Bearcat ( talk) 14:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No participants so far.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 16:20, 8 September 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! 05:13, 12 September 2022 (UTC) reply

McAllister Olivarius

AfDs for this article:
McAllister Olivarius (  | 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)

Im unable to find significant coverage on the company that meets WP:NCORP. Article does not meet the guidelines for companies. DavidEfraim ( talk) 13:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 14:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A non-sock voted delete. Cannot make a decision based on the nominator's sockpuppetry alone.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 16:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep There are numerous reliable sources. My one concern is that the articles are mainly about court cases in which the firm participated. However, since the firm is talked about in those cases I assume that establishes notability. Lamona ( talk) 02:57, 10 September 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. Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:33, 16 September 2022 (UTC) reply

G47 Nenjiang–Dandong Expressway

G47 Nenjiang–Dandong Expressway (  | 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)

Full of creator's own original researches and misreading of sources, all available sources don't show anything where "G47" and/or the expressway name mentioned. Liuxinyu970226 ( talk) 07:15, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and China. Shellwood ( talk) 07:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:V, I searched for "G47" and the two Chinese names on Baidu and did not found no news articles or even government press releases discussing it. Jumpytoo Talk 05:41, 2 September 2022 (UTC) Changing vote to Delete the redirect only, while keeping the G4512 article which is a verifiable expressway. Jumpytoo Talk 05:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    There's literally a map of the route on the Baike page??
    Your allegations are potentially fabricated. Dennis Dartman ( talk) 14:51, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    Baidu Baike is an open wiki. Anyone can upload anything onto there, so it is user-generated content and not reliable, unless you can show where the image originally came from. Regardless, it is so small I can't pull out any useful information about it. The third source, while also WP:UGC and unreliable, claims (Google translated): Due to the few records of G47 on the Internet Therefore, it is believed that G47 does not exist. Jumpytoo Talk 18:28, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Originally I was just going to say delete for much of the same reasons as above, but now in addition to that I'm also going to ask for User:Dennis Dartman to be banned indefinitely from Wikipedia without the possibility of parole. From the looks of their editing behavior, they are a WP:SPA who is only here to negatively contribute to the encyclopedia by means of disruptive editing. This article is a WP:HOAX with no factual basis. G47 does not exist. George Huntley ( talk) 15:03, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    No? I didn't create my account just to make this article? And I made this article because it does exist, Chinese and American maps depict it, signs for it have been erected, etc.?
    Honestly, from the looks of your contributions, it looks like you're ironically more of a single-purpose account, considering that all of your edits up until now have been about Egg Fu Yong (or other recipes or spelling variants thereof). Dennis Dartman ( talk) 15:14, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. This sounds more like the name of a highway project and not a current highway. I am not sure it meets GNG. Plenty of contract bidding disclosures from the local government [15] and there is one article about the building process in Google Scholar [16]. There is even one article mentioning its code name S47 (not G47) from a 2011 report [17]. However, the highway between Nengjiang and Baicheng, the only built part of this project, is now coded as G4512 [18], which means it now part of the G45 and not going all the way to Dandong as originally planned. -- Skyfiler ( talk) 23:41, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    Comment: Do you know how the NTHS works? S stands for 省, which means "province" in Chinese. G stands for 国, which means "country" in Chinese. They are akin to state routes and interstate highways respectively in America.
    Now, if you look at the actual route of the expressway, you will see that Nenjiang, G47's northern terminus, is in Heilongjiang province, and that Dandong, G47's southern terminus, is in Liaoning province. Furthermore, Jilin province is in the middle. Unlike often in the United States, the Chinese practice is typically for each province to maintain its own network of S-class expressways, and numbers are rarely, if ever, shared between provinces across boundary lines.
    Notwithstanding these arguments, I have moved the G47 article to G4512, which did not exist hitherto. Dennis Dartman ( talk) 00:40, 4 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    Well, I guess the reason why you were believing that G47 exists, is probably because of the Baidu Maps (百度地图), where it marked G47 on the affected sections just south of Baicheng. In this case:
    1. I've reported their typo on numbering, and is waiting for Baidu's response.
    2. Due to the Restrictions on geographic data in China, many of the coordinates provided by Mainland Chinese maps providers are not trustful. While this panorama don't directly affect the quality of sources of highway numbering systems, I'm afraid, that Baidu Maps did a very bad god name-based behavior on misrepresenting of local govt's plans.
    3. Baidu Maps started providing routes in other countries since (IIRC) 2018, by just forking OpenStreetMap's datas with largely censored sensetive names, and even without attributions about OSM's copyrights (I believe that attributions are also required by ODbL, the license OSM is currently using). Also after Pelosi's visit to Taiwan, they drew a imaginary route between Pingtan and Hsinchu on their mobile apps, it currently only works for navigations so you couldn't saw it easily, mean that you could plan your navigation routes to e.g. Taipei 101 (better try it, you could see that imaginary route "跨海大桥（拟建设）" as a blue dotted line).
    Due to those problem, I would propose via WP:RSN when I have time, to treat Baidu Maps' quality as same level of Baidu Baike. Liuxinyu970226 ( talk) 23:09, 4 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    If you're under the impression that Baidu's treating the Taiwan Strait bridge as an already-built structure, I'm sure you'd be happy to know that "拟建设" means "to be built" or "under planning"!
    But from my personal experience both inside and outside of Mainland China, I'd have to agree that Baidu (or other domestic mapping services, like Gaode Ditu/Amap) are many times better than anything Google has to offer, which shouldn't exactly be too surprising considering the restrictions on geographic data in China. Dennis Dartman ( talk) 22:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    It should also be mentioned that G47 has appeared on many different mapping services, including Google Maps. Dennis Dartman ( talk) 23:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    These are also typos as concerned by OpenStreetMap Wiki, see Copyright Easter Eggs. Liuxinyu970226 ( talk) 05:17, 6 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Suppose it's built by individual provinces concurrently, then the section between Benxi and Dandong should be part of this highway. However this section is called G1113 by now [19]. I am not sure if there is any in depth coverage independent of the local government (local government web site and newspaper are not independent sources) on this project. -- Skyfiler ( talk) 15:48, 5 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 15:11, 8 September 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 delete. CSD G5, sockpuppet of Ijumdiya wadzani. Now that you have located these sources, feel free to recreate this article, maybe in Draft space. Liz Read! Talk! 21:19, 12 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Kiriku

Kiriku (  | 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)

User who declined G11 suggested bringing this article to AFD. None of the sources seem like good RS (they're somewhat promotional) and a Google search only found his YT videos. dud hhr Contribs(he/they) 14:52, 8 September 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. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 17:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Hunt to Kill

Hunt to Kill (  | 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)

So, this film keeps having a "notability" tag added to it. It has 3 Critic Reviews at Rotten Tomatoes, which I feel makes it pass WP:NFILM, 2 of which I added to the article. One, Common Sense Media is listed at WP:RSP. There is another review (that isn't cited in the article) from Dread Central [24], listed at WP:HORROR/S as reliable.

Another editor doesn't think they qualify as SIGCOV and added back the tag after I removed it. Instead of getting into an edit war, I offer up the article to everyone to comment on it. Is this film notable enough to have an article (which I believe it is), or is it not notable and therefore should be deleted? DonaldD23 talk to me 14:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Also, Dread Central is pretty significant in the horror community. Not only did they run their own convention, but they also opened up a video line. They've won a Rondo Hatton Classic Horror Award, which has been likened to a "horror Oscar" by Entertainment Weekly and (the awards) have been pretty widely covered. A review from them would easily be considered a RS. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Basically, I kind of take exception to the idea that a reviewer has to be known akin to Siskel and Ebert or review for a major publication like the New York Times in order to be seen as a RS. Dread Central is extremely well known within the horror fandom and is pretty well respected. They do cross over sometimes into action and whatnot since there are overlapping fandoms. It's very, VERY common for wrestling and action fans to have an interest in horror, which is why Dread Central will sometimes review films that delve into either area.
The term "nationally known" is also kind of vague. What's known to one isn't to another. A reviewer really only being known within their genre doesn't mean that they're not a RS. I'm not arguing for some random blogger, but rather a staff reviewer for a known and respected horror website. It's not some random fly by night deal and Foywonder has been reviewing for Dread Central for an extremely long time, as in decades. They have reviews going back to 1999. Sorry for the long post, but it's not the first time people have pushed back against mainstream genre websites as sources on Wikipedia. It's just frustrating to have to continually make the case that extremely well known and notable websites/outlets should continue to be seen as reliable sources. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply
FTR, Dread Central probably meets that criteria (though more for horror films than for an "action film" like this one), and LA Times certainly does (though I can't check that one here because it's behind a paywall), but Common Sense Media and Future Movies UK almost certainly do not meet that criteria. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 15:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply
CSM is a reliable source. Sorry that the THREE discussions about Common Sense Media all determined that it is. Can you explain why your opinion overrides Wikipedia consensus? DonaldD23 talk to me 17:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply
Can you explain why you think Common Sense Media, or pretty much any "website reviews", qualifies as "nationally known critics"?! Because that seriously seems to be your view – that pretty much any "website review" counts. It doesn't. That is specifically why WP:NFILM is written with the qualification being "nationally known critics" – that means, Variety, LA Times, Entertainment Weekly, etc. It doesn't mean anyone that publishes a review on the web. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 17:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply
Clearly you don't care about the opinions/results of 3 discussions about Common Sense Media, as your view still seems to be that their reviews aren't notable. DonaldD23 talk to me 18:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • With reviews, the general expectations is that it get published by an established outlet considered to be a reliable source. The establishing part is typically done by showing how the outlet has won awards, been covered, and/or is routinely cited as a reliable source by other reliable sources - academic and scholarly sources are particularly good for this. Editorial oversight can also help with establishing how a site is reliable, but having a published editorial staff isn't exactly required for this. For example, MOMA runs a blog of sorts that doesn't have their editorial staff clearly posted - however if you click on the posts it shows that they're written by staff members (former or current) and as it's an official blog, there's some level of editorial oversight. They don't accept posts from random people, in other words.
Common Sense Media allows people to post, but their expert reviews are typically staff reviews. I think that they will sometimes accept user/freelance reviews, but they do undergo an editorial process. They are known as a review website, but they don't review everything. The reviews are reasonably in-depth as well, as they can run about 2 paragraphs. You can also see where they're commented upon or used as a source in things like this book by the American Psychiatric Association and this journal article. Now I don't know that I would use them as a source for health and medicine related articles as there are far stronger sources out there, but for reviews they're just fine. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • It also helps that they are listed on Rotten Tomatoes. The other site I would have to look at to determine if they could be usable and to be honest, if it were the deciding factor on notability I'd be more leery of it, but thankfully there's enough reviews to establish notability. It shows where it's been reviewed but also gives a reasonable expectation that there's coverage of the production out there. It's harder to find coverage for a 2010 film, so that would likely take more digging. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: As a general rule, straight-to-video films, like this, are generally not notable enough for a standalone article. (Yes, there are some exceptions...) For example, can anyone find any coverage of the production of this film?! -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 15:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    FYI...production info isn't required for released films to pass notability, but reviews are. Production info is required for future films to have articles. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    Sure, if your viewpoint is that anything that meets the absolute minimum should get a standalone article. A lot of us have higher standards than that. (It also depends on exactly what you interpret WP:SIGCOV to mean.) IOW, if you are just barely skating by minimum standards – if all you have are a few "reviews" – then it's still questionable that a standalone article is justified. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 17:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    Isn't that the definition of inclusion, meeting the minimum? If an article didn't meet the minimum then it shouldn't be included. So, yes, the accepted viewpoint is that if an article meets the minimum, then it should be included. If the minimum is too scant for you then take that up with the committees to change the minimum. But, until the rules change, minimum is good enough for inclusion. DonaldD23 talk to me 18:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    You don't seem to understand the difference between "can" and "should". It's clear that you think that anything that squeaks by the absolute minimum of WP:GNG should be included, regardless, but that isn't in fact the policy (as per things like WP:NOPAGE – "Sometimes, understanding is best achieved by presenting the material on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so. (emphasis mine)). Once something "can" meet WP:GNG, there should always be a followup question: "Should there be a standalone article on this?!" There is nothing that says that everything than can possibly squeak by GNG should be included here. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 19:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply
Production coverage is only essential if you're trying to presumptively establish the notability of a film that's still in the production pipeline and thus cannot yet show critical reviews. Once a film has been released, production coverage is nice to have if it's available, but no longer a requirement — it's the critical analysis of the finished product that is fundamentally much more essential. Bearcat ( talk) 20:45, 10 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • I get kind of where you're coming from IJBall - there are a lot of films that just barely squeak by notability guidelines and it can get frustrating in those situations since it can be difficult to see how it can be encyclopedic. However at the same time, the guidelines are a little loose in order to avoid being too exclusive and then not being much different than places like Britannica. It's kind of an awkward balancing act from trying to avoid being too inclusive and too exclusive. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply
Thank you. That's always been my view – that we should strive for more than just "barely betting by GNG = standalone article!!" Not every subject – and not every C-list direct-to-video film filmed in Vancouver! (as this film clearly is – and I know 'cos I just watched it!) – merits its own article, even if it can scrape by GNG. We should strive for more than that as an encyclopedia, and restrict ourselves to truly notable topics... But also thank you for looking into production-related sources for this film. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 19:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, yeah it's not the best sourcing, but it's there. Barely squeaking by or not, it's there. Rules are what they are on here. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:26, 9 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Article is improved and passes WP:NFILM. The Film Creator ( talk) 12:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. To be fair, this is an issue that we're going to confront more and more in the 2020s — with many newspapers now cutting back on their original arts reporting due to budget constraints, more and more film reviewing is moving to exclusively online platforms like Dread Central, Film Threat or Original Cin. It's true that not all such startups would be WP:GNG-worthy coverage of a film — we still have to distinguish legitimate online film magazines from online film blogs — but some of them certainly are. And while publications like Variety, the LA Times, Entertainment Weekly or The Hollywood Reporter are obviously gold-standard sources that would clinch the notability of a film they reviewed almost all by themselves, that doesn't mean they're the only sources that count toward establishing the notability of a film. And besides Dread Central, I also see citations here to Screen Daily (a publication that is in the Variety/Hollywood Reporter tier of elite film sources) and three real print newspapers, so it's clear that this passes the bar. I'm not particularly fond of the "two media citations = instant notability pass" interpretation of GNG either, to be honest, but stating a principle that we should "restrict ourselves to truly notable topics" instead of following GNG isn't helpful if you don't propose any specific definition of how we can determine when a film has or hasn't crossed the "truly notable" vs. "technically passes GNG but still isn't truly notable" line. That could conceivably be a topic for discussion in the future, but that would take longer than one week and an AFD on one specific film of debatable notability isn't the venue for it. Bearcat ( talk) 14:57, 10 September 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 14:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Barclay McGain

AfDs for this article:
Barclay McGain (  | 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)

UPE issues were raised towards and after the end of the previous AFD, and creator was a few months later blocked as a sock. G5 declined due to intervening edits by other users. Leaving aside the SPIP/PROMO, it is unclear that there is in fact substantial coverage. I have not, unfortunately, yet reviewed the entire reference list, which appears to consist of "every single ghit on the subject", or close enough, but what I have reviewed is largely the newsorg equivalent of reaction videos, i.e. Alice Expert saying everyone is or ought to be very upset about this and how they don't endorse it.

Going back to self promotion: as alluded to by TheDownUnderEditor in the previous AfD and on the talk page, this is basically ubiquitous among conservatives wishing to puff themselves up and establish their credentials. It is hardly useful in establishing notability.

All in all, I do not see the sourcing required for a fundamental rewrite such that it may comply with our content policies, including WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTPROMO (even outside of the fact that a UPE creation is that by default). Even were it to exist, I do not believe the article as it currently stands would be any help towards that end.

Pinging the participants of the previous AFD: ITBF, Tytrox, Aoziwe, Styyx, Rybkovich, Houmanumi and Swordman97, if they're still interested in this article. Alpha3031 ( t • c) 14:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. I agree in full with Swordman97's comments above, and maintain that the only notable story that broke the mainstream involving McGain (the schoolie's video) would be better suited to being a listed 'Controversy' on the Young LNP page. He is a university student and former political staffer who had some questionable social media posts, one of which had a brief moment of virality. Does not pass WP:NPOL or any aspect of WP:BIO. Houmanumi ( talk) 12:40, 10 September 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 14:36, 15 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Tarun Dhanrajgir

Tarun Dhanrajgir (  | 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)

Bit-part actor. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:SIGCOV. Routine coverage. scope_creep Talk 13:45, 8 September 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 14:36, 15 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Iqbal Institute of Technology and Management

Iqbal Institute of Technology and Management (  | 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)

In a continuation to WP:Articles for deletion/Iqbal Memorial Institute, here is another article about a institution from the same group that lacks any notability, and easily fails WP:NORG. Noting again that it has had (and still has) some secondary references, but no reliable or significant source, nither in the article nor on the web. It was a promotional article at creation for 3 days in 2016 ( Special:Permalink/709542327). It was then converted into a non-notable stub when promotional material was removed. — CX Zoom[he/him] ( let's talk • { C• X}) 13:13, 8 September 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 14:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Iqbal Memorial Institute

Iqbal Memorial Institute (  | 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 about a private school is completely dependent on primary sources ever since creation in 2008. An attempt to establish notability as per WP:NORG went futile after all I found is the school's own website, some (possibly) not- WP:RS generic school listing websites, which add to trivial coverage but no significant coverage, and Wikipedia mirrors. — CX Zoom[he/him] ( let's talk • { C• X}) 12:15, 8 September 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 12:11, 15 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Nicole Sahin

Nicole Sahin (  | 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)

Delete per ANYBIO and GNG. Not notable, no RS Dark Juliorik ( talk) 09:53, 8 September 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! 20:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Robert B. Sturges

Robert B. Sturges (  | 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)

Delete per ANYBIO and GNG. Not notable, no RS. Dark Juliorik ( talk) 09:52, 8 September 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 12:11, 15 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Sterwins

Sterwins (  | 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 sufficient WP:RS to pass WP:NCORP Dark Juliorik ( talk) 09:48, 8 September 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! 07:37, 15 September 2022 (UTC) P.S. FOARP, by the way, XFDCloser still doesn't like how you list your bundled nominations so I deleted the other 22 articles individually. It's not a lot of work but there does seem to be a trick to formatting these nominations. I think you need put the articles above the nomination statement, at the top of the page. Liz Read! Talk! 07:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Sazeman-e Ettehad Shomareh Yek va Do

Sazeman-e Ettehad Shomareh Yek va Do (  | 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 wrote a long delete rationale and it got eaten by the my web browser so I'm just going to direct you first to every other delete discussion we've had about these Iranian Abadi. Particularly this one.

The TL;DR version is that the name of this place translates as "Organisation numbers one and two". the local mosques are just called "Etihad 1" and "Etihad 2". Etihad just means "united" or "organised" and is unlikely to be a place-name. The addresses in GMaps for the location given in the article (which appears to be between two villages) all describe it as Yolme Salian which we already have an article on.

This is just yet another example of the kind of mess that trying to transpose every listing in a directory into an article on Wikipedia causes. I'm also nominating the following articles since they are also Iranian "village" articles including the term "Shomareh" (i.e., "number") because all of these appear to be either numbered-neighbourhoods/locations or groupings of neighbourhoods and not real villages and all have the same failings as this article -

Nb. the redirects above are cases where the creator (Carlossuarez46 who resigned following an arbcom case) appears to have come up with their own ersatz name by removing the "shomareh" bit of the name, but in many cases they have left the Farsi number in (e.g., "do", which is "two") and also have the same failings.

These are hoax/spam articles created by the same editor using the same template and as such bundling is allowed per WP:BUNDLE.

I'll template the articles in the list later with AWB, please have patience. The list is not collapsed in this case because this appears to cause problems for the automated deletion tool used by closers - we'll see if this works better. FOARP ( talk) 08:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply

LaundryPizza03 - Yeah, there's some article titles that throw up warning signs straight away: Deh-e Hut (ده حوت) means literally "Ten Fish" according to Google Translate and is right next to a village supposedly called Deh-e Hut 1 0_o . I take these cases here to AFD because they can be done in bulk here, it has a decisive effect, and it has re-checking of my WP:BEFORE work by other editors, but another big reason is I'm trying to build a case to just delete all of these Abadi articles. So far, as far as I am aware, every single large-scale deletion of Abadi has been approved by consensus and frankly I think after a few more of these passing through unobjected it will be time to take it large scale. FOARP ( talk) 13:51, 8 September 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! 07:37, 15 September 2022 (UTC) reply

The Northeast Today

The Northeast Today (  | 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)

No evidence of any WP:SEC. Fails WP:WEB. -✍ NeverTry4Me⛅ C♯ 08:05, 8 September 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! 07:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Steve Hall (comedian)

Steve Hall (comedian) (  | 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 check shows a lack of sources online or in books. Any coverage out there is almost entirely located in primary/non secondary sources that sell tickets to his performances. There is some incredibly minor routine coverage out there, but nothing more than a passing mention. Came across this while new page patrolling. Article has previously been deleted as an expired PROD - however as the deletion was not via discussion I could not nominate for the appropriate speedy delete. Ultimately, the lack of significant, in-depth coverage means meeting WP:GNG is not possible for the subject of this article and hence it should be deleted. MaxnaCarta ( talk) 07:05, 8 September 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! 05:37, 15 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Milind Mulick

Milind Mulick (  | 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:ARTIST, not notable enough to pass SNG. Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝) 06:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep A totally stellar artist and seems to be an author. Likely passes WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep Talk 11:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - The article sourcing consisted of simple mentions of him; however I added a short piece (possibly a press release?) from Times of India that has two paragraphs on him. A BEFORE search only turned up social media, blog posts, and the Times of India piece I added. Unless better sourcing can be found, it's doubtful he can pass WP:GNG. Fails WP:NARTIST at this time, but I'm holding off on !voting for now to see if book reviews, museum collections, or exhibition reviews can be found. Netherzone ( talk) 00:52, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I've completed a BEFORE search, and unfortunatly all that turned up was social media, listings of workshops, mentions of his brand of paints, and book sales sites and blogs, not not SIGCOV. He may be well known, but he does not meet WP criteria for notability per GNG nor NARTIST. Netherzone ( talk) 15:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment – searching for "मिलिंद मुळीक", the artist's name in Marathi, gives some additional resources. For example, there is an interesting article (approx 3,600 words) in Marathi about him, his art and his books, concluding with an interview with Mulick, at https://vishesh.maayboli.com/diwali-2010kaj/789 (translated version here).
I also seem to get different search results by searching on the alternative commonly used transliterations of his name: Mulik, Malik, Mulick, Mullick, etc. I am still going through the many search results, so will decide my !vote later – life is busy and I need to find time to make a proper assessment. — Hebrides ( talk) 16:13, 4 September 2022 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure if that's journalism, or a user-submitted social networking site, per the website: Maayboli.com, or Maayboli, is an online networking community that connects its members through networks of friends and through a variety of services that it provides to its members. and Maayboli: A Great resource directory and social network for Marathi language, Marathi People and Maharashtrian culture. - it's unclear if there is any editorial oversight, were you able to find that there is? Netherzone ( talk) 18:13, 4 September 2022 (UTC) reply
Yeah I found this part and am a little confused what the website is for. Sometimes it looks like news and other times like a newsletter. That's not a bad thing and I'm not knocking it, I just had problems establishing if this was a news site or a blogging site. Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝) 00:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:GNG ("A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"). After considerable searching I would like to propose the following sources as significant, reliable and independent in order to satisfy the WP:GNG criteria:
  1. An article (about 500 words) in The New Indian Express about Mulick's life, education and art, with a photograph of the artist at work, at https://www.newindianexpress.com/magazine/2017/oct/07/watercolour-wonders-1667388--1.html – this is a significant article and I consider The New Indian Express (founded in 1932) to be a reliable and independent source
  2. An article (over 400 words) on the Marathi News website from the publishers of Dainik Bhaskar about Mulick's work and career, written in Marathi, at https://divyamarathi.bhaskar.com/news/MAG-artist-2296035.html – (translation here) – this is "significant coverage" and independent of the subject, and this news item from DB Corp, India's largest newspaper group, could reasonably be assumed to be reliable
  3. A further article (about 500 words) in the same publication as (2) reviewing his book Watercolor Landscapes Step by Step, at https://divyamarathi.bhaskar.com/news/MAG-watercolor-paintings-2189908.html – (translation here) – again, I consider this to be significant, reliable and independent of the subject
For the record, I have no connection with this artist or with either of the publications – I just came across the article when checking new articles a few days ago. I am looking to expand the article slightly, using information from these and other new references, but have a bit more work to do on this material before making changes. I wanted first to establish notability – after all, WP:ARTN makes it clear that notability is a property of the subject, irrespective of the quality or completeness of the Wikipedia article, and WP:NEXIST means we can consider the above sources before I have cited them in the article.
Comments on the rationale above are welcome. Thank you to all who have contributed to this discussion. — Hebrides ( talk) 12:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:51, 8 September 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 06:28, 15 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Sam Omo

Sam Omo (  | 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:CREATIVE as no indication this individual has had the necessary WP:SIGCOV needed to sustain an article. References provided merely link to the individual's own portfolio pages, more in line with WP:PROMO. Also possible WP:COI and vanity, per article talk page. Bungle ( talk • contribs) 06:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply

The Article didn't reference the artist's portfolio, but to a reliable and different sources by independent publishers.Thus, I still think the artist is worth having an article on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikifixR ( talk • contribs) 11:16, 8 September 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! 03:48, 15 September 2022 (UTC) reply

United States presidential line of succession in fiction

United States presidential line of succession in fiction (  | 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)

We can debate whether the Lists of fictional presidents of the United States, split into several poorly referenced subarticles, is notable; I am sure some would think so. Perhaps (and if you do, please try to improve the mentioned list). But I digress. What we have here is... well, a very minor concept that fails WP:NLIST or WP:GNG. The article/list is effectively unreferenced (there is a single footnote to a primary source in the form of a non-notable podcast). It's a big pile of WP:FANCRUFT, failing WP:IPC of course, and I don't think this even merits a redirect anywhere. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:39, 8 September 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 Jefferson Township, Whitley County, Indiana. Liz Read! Talk! 02:43, 15 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Saturn, Indiana

Saturn, Indiana (  | 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 doing well on searching for this one either, as the clickbait generators love that word "Saturn". What I did find is that there is a Saturn Church on the next east/west road north from this spot, which is occupied only be a cemetery which may or may not have anything to do with the church. This is also a case where the spot was apparently added to the topos from GNIS. Possibly this was a town that didn't last too long, but at the moment what we have is a locale/old post office. Mangoe ( talk) 03:25, 8 September 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! 02:26, 15 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Marysia Nikitiuk

Marysia Nikitiuk (  | 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)

Fourth-best Ukrainian film of the 2010s by MovieWeb. The person Does not meet our WP:GNG requirements as a WP:FILMMAKER Bruxton ( talk) 02:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Not sure what the deletion argument is regarding that first sentence, as the article has far more references and discussion of the subject's work than just the MovieWeb link. There's also the Cannes film awards that exist out there, among others. And there's a lot of non-English coverage out there on her (not exactly surprising) spanning years. Here's just some examples:
  • Desiateryk, Dmytro (March 1, 2018). "Marysia NIKITIUK: "I want to say something about humanity with every story I tell"". The Day. Retrieved September 7, 2022.
  • Lizengevic, Inga (April 4, 2022). "Plädoyer für den Kulturboykott" [Plea for the cultural boycott]. Deutschlandfunk Kultur (in German). Retrieved September 7, 2022.
  • Abenia, Enrique (December 10, 2021). "[ArteKino 2021] La sorprendente personalidad de Marysia Nikitiuk en la ucraniana 'When the Trees Fall'" [[ArteKino 2021] The surprising personality of Marysia Nikitiuk in the Ukrainian 'When the Trees Fall']. Cinemanía (in Spanish). Retrieved September 7, 2022.
  • Deresh, Ljubko (June 2, 2016). "Marysia Nikitiuk: Today's Character is a Bad Man with a Kind Heart and an Incredible Sense of Guilt". Ukrainska Pravda. Retrieved September 7, 2022.
  • "State Film Agency: Ukrainian script writer Nikitiuk receives Cannes Film Festival award". Interfax-Ukraine. May 20, 2016. Retrieved September 7, 2022.
There's more sources to go through, but I think that's enough to show GNG requirements. Silver seren C 03:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This editor marked this article for deletion previously. Myself and others have added even more references since then. Her films have been in major film festivals and covered in notable publications. Not sure what the issue is.
EponineBunnyKickQueen ( talk) 04:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply
Comment: I see that interviews have been posted here as sources, and an award for - Best Script from Central and Eastern Europe. The collection does not rise to meet our guidelines for WP:FILMMAKER from my reading. We have interviews and awards that are not very notable. Bruxton ( talk) 14:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply
Are you making that assessment just based on the above links? They are only four of currently 33 sources cited in the entry, among which are many fully secondary sources, like news writeups ( 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) and film reviews ( 6, 7, 8), among other secondary sources, like seven different write-ups of best Ukrainian films, which recognize two of her projects. Moreover, this is not an exhaustive list, just where I’ve paused in the google results for now. Innisfree987 ( talk) 04:00, 11 September 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. A consensus to delete has formed over the absence of sufficient in-depth treatment in reliable sources. BD2412 T 05:30, 15 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Nigar Helmi Abbasbeyli

Nigar Helmi Abbasbeyli (  | 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 person is not notability, does not meet the criteria. Samral ( talk) 11:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep - Article format is an issue, but person is notability per WP:SIGCOV by the sources cited in the article. PiccklePiclePikel ( talk) 16:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not only does the subject fail notability, the editor who created the article made exactly 10 edits before posting this article on the main space. WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 22:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    You are right in questioning the edit history of the creator, however the topic does meet notability through significant coverage apparent in the sources used in the article. PiccklePiclePikel ( talk) 15:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • I can only speak about the Turkish sources here. Ref 2 from an RS is quite lenghty, however, it mostly consists of "Her work will be shown in an expedition" and then it's a bunch of quotes from a few people. I don't really see much significant coverage about her. Ref 3 from an RS is super short, and wouldn't qualify as significant coverage. Ref 4 from an RS is only 3 sentences long, wouldn't call that SIGCOV either. Ref 7 is the exact same source as Ref 2, so it can't be counted as seperate. Haberler.com isn't considered to be reliable on the Turkish Wikipedia anyway. Ref 10 is from a random website I've never heard of, I don't think it's a RS. Now, looking at the Turkish sources, I don't see a reason why I should be convinced of Azerbaijani being any different. I'd be surprised if there suddenly was a huge contrast between the sources. Considering the nominator is fluent in Azerbaijani (and a former azwiki sysop), I'm leaning towards delete as well. Mind you that just looking at the titles, Refs 1 and 8 appear to be about the exact same thing as Ref 2. Gonna pull the refbomb card here. ~Styyx Talk? 17:10, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    She may as well meet Wikipedia:WikiProject Contemporary Art/Notability≈ under criteria: "has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition" as her exhibition called Legacy of Karabakh is displayed at the Atatürk Cultural Center which is a significant venue and the exhibition seems rather significant. @ Styyx I see why you are pulling the Refbomb card, I read up on it. However, I think this is not a case of refbomb because even Daily Sabah, a reliable news source given the topic, refers to her as "Famous Azerbaijani Artists". PiccklePiclePikel ( talk) 17:33, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
That's an essay, which tend to have almost no value when it comes to an AfD per WP:SNG. You could make an argument for WP:ENT#4b WP:NARTIST#4b instead, which is at least a guideline. However, I think it's a bit borderline. Having a single exhibition, for just over a week, in a culture center that hosts hundreds of exhibitions a year, IMO doesn't make someone automatically notable, and the guideline itself states that those people are "likely notable", not "definitely". I don't think an argument based on barely meeting an SNG is going to convince others to keep what is pretty much cross-wiki spam. ~Styyx Talk? 18:04, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
What do you mean by essay? The article seems to talk about what happened at the opening of the exhibit. "launched in AKM by Deputy Minister of Tourism Özgül Özkan Yavuz, Consul General of the Republic of Azerbaijan in Istanbul Narmina Mustafayeva" seems quite significant, especially in the political-historical context that the exhibition sits in with the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. What are you referring to with Wikipedia:Notability (people)#4B? The exhibition is talked about in the major Turkish newspapers, not just Daily Sabah, Akşam, Yeni Şafak but also the big daily's Milliyet, Hürriyet have entries about this exhibition. So yeah its not definitely notable as most things as you say, but makes a quite strong case for it being notable enough. PiccklePiclePikel@ Styyx ( talk) 18:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
What I mean is that Wikipedia:WikiProject Contemporary Art/Notability you linked above is a Wikipedia essay, which aren't significant at AfD's (as explained by the final paragraph of WP:SNG). I meant to refer to WP:NARTIST#4b, not WP:ENT. The subject barely meets that, but I'm not willing to keep a cross-wiki spam article that only has a claim of notability because they had a 9-day exhibition at AKM which hosts hundreds of those each year. These criteria point that such subjects are likely notable but not definitely, and WP:SNG states that topics meeting such criteria can still be deleted "if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found", which is the case here. ~Styyx Talk? 19:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
Oh yes, @ Styyx, then I agree about #4b, which is basically the same criteria that I referred to in the Wikipedia essay. And yes, "such subjects are likely notable but not definitely" . In this case "adequate sourcing or significant coverage" can be found in the form of articles in the major Turkish dailies. PiccklePiclePikel ( talk) 19:37, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
I'd like to echo what I said in my first comment: most of these are the exact same source, copied word for word, that can't be considered as seperate. A good chunk aren't reliable anyway. ~Styyx Talk? 06:31, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Styyx I understand your point, however, that is not completely accurate. Other than the English language Daily Sabah article and the Azeri YeniGundem article, the remaining articles originate from 3 separate sources. One from İhlas News Agency, another from Anadolu Agency, and lastly from an article written in Platin by Olcay Can Kaplan. I have re-organised the list of articles so that they are grouped by the ones with similar origins so that this will be easier to see. These original sources are generally reliable given the topic.-- PiccklePiclePikel ( talk) 13:37, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment The bludgeoning by PiccklePiclePikel prompted me to take a look at their editing history. Joined 2022-08-25 and has jumped into AFD with a vengeance, with a knowledge of the process and vehemence of opinion that would be pretty hard to acquire in less than two weeks. WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 00:28, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Thanks, that's a very interesting AfD stats page. Did not mean to bludgeon. It's hard to be credible in saying that there is significant coverage without actually going and finding that coverage to present to the discussion, thereby the reason for my further contribution. PiccklePiclePikel ( talk) 00:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply
Comment Pinging Nythar who has the same concerns about your swift learning curve of the AfD process. WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 02:04, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply
Thank you, WomenArtistUpdates. I encountered PiccklePiclePikel during their third day on Wikipedia, here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tello UAV. Their first few edits were random, before focusing on AfD. I don't know why, but their knowledge doesn't appear to be at the level of a newcomer. They might have used an IP before switching to an account, I don't know. Other than that, the discussions I've been having with them (example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Music of Your Life) have been exhausting, I feel it might be wp:bludgeoning. Nythar T. C 04:16, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Comment So based on the source analysis waaaay up top, she isn't notable. If she's been the part of a major museum display/exhibition, fine, but we still need sources to confirm that or it's a tenuous GNG at best. Oaktree b ( talk) 04:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Also the original creator of the article and the one person who !voted in support of the article seem to have ended their participation on English Wikipedia. WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 16:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    Pickle has been asked on his user page about other accounts, socking? I don't know. Oaktree b ( talk) 03:06, 9 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Nothing in JStor, Gscohlar, Gbooks, or looking in the ULAN artists search. If she was in the Unesco thing, I'd expect her to at least be in ULAN. zero sources found. Whatever thsat art3f thing is, the artists either have to pay to display or they get sponsored; it looks very much like a sales platform, not an art gallery display (going by what's on their French website, [32]. This whole thing smells fishy. These aren't major art exhibitions; she spent a whole 2 days in the Carousel du Louvre and 2 days in Monaco? The Carousel du Louvre is basically a shopping center, Lacoste and Pandora are there [33]. Art Expo in New York is a trade fair [34]... So displaying there is basically trying to sell stuff. She is in no way notable. This is likely a promotional use of wiki... Shameful, trying to represent these "galleries" as exhibitions in museums. Oaktree b ( talk) 03:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete owing to a lack of multiple, in-depth, high quality sources with which to write a biography. Does not meet WP:GNG. Styyx has covered the Turkish sources, I’ve looked at the rest, they are all about an exhibition at the Atatürk Cultural Center and do not represent significant coverage of the subject of the article. My own searches find nothing useful. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:11, 15 September 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. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 08:36, 15 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Anita, Indiana

Anita, Indiana (  | 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 cannot find evidence that there was a town here. That it was a station is amply documented, but that's ab out all I can find. Mangoe ( talk) 03:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per TartarTorte and the above sources. Waddles  🗩  🖉 01:05, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • comment I am finding it impossible to reconcile these various sources. The list of surviving Indiana stations is either flat-out wrong, or they think Anita is at a different location, because there weren't any buildings in the area at all from some time in the 1960s up until someone built a manorial house at the end of a long driveway to the west; before that all I can see in the aerials is a quite small building not all that close to the tracks. Even then this looks self-published. There seems to be something wrong with the citation from the INRD book as it isn't consistent with the book's index. Mangoe ( talk) 04:39, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    Which references were you referring to in your nomination that the station was amply documented? Can you please provide them? They are not needed to establish that the town existed, but would be useful to clarify. Thanks. Djflem ( talk) 08:28, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the above. While I definitely agree there are plenty of non-populated-place GNIS-spam article stubs that are good to delete, I think we need to be careful to avoid catching legitimate populated places, including those that are very small, or those that are practically extinct but with documented history. In this case it seems most consistent with GEOLAND to retain the article. ╠╣uw [ talk 11:30, 7 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete We have a newspaper article which goes into great detail about a railway depot and associated buildings at this location with no mention of a town. If sources describing a town are found, ping me and I will reconsider. – dlthewave ☎ 18:31, 7 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Until we can definitively determine whether or not there was a populated place at this title, this AFD shouldn't be closed. Right now, opinions are split about this basic fact.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply

That fact has been established, so the AfD can closed: Rund, Christopher (2006), The Indiana Rail Road Company: America's New Regional Railroad, Indiana University Press, pp. 218–219, ISBN  9780253346926, Anita is another town along the line bearing the name of a young lady...By the 1980's the Anita was almost non-existent...The state highway department was on the verge of erasing Anita from map, but proponents of the all-but-forgotten town, successfully petitioned to preverse Anita's identity. The town remained acknowledge on paper and was even marked by a roadside commerative plaque. Djflem ( talk) 05:23, 8 September 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 03:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply

SEE-I

SEE-I (  | 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 lacks sufficient sources and is a possible violation of WP:NOT. I suggest deleting or draftifying. The creator has only two edits outside of this page. FAdesdae378 ( talk · contribs) 02:46, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:53, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:06, 8 September 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 undeletion of these articles. ✗ plicit 11:47, 10 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Jang Myong-gyong

Jang Myong-gyong (  | 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 lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 01:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Also nominating, because same quality article and similar events contested by each:

Pak Mi-song (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:38, 8 September 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! 01:17, 15 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Walnut Corners, Indiana

Walnut Corners, Indiana (  | 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)

Another searching issue, in this case because there are several other spots in this state and the next with the same name. I didn't get anything that I could clearly identify with this spot which indicated it was anything other than the intersection which the name suggests and the maps all show. Mangoe ( talk) 00:53, 8 September 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_September_8&oldid=1110514295"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 07 September 09 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. If an editor wants to work on this article in Draft space, let me know. Liz Read! Talk! 23:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Asif Ahmed Khan

Asif Ahmed Khan (  | 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'm not finding anything to substantiate the notability of this actor who just emerged this year. It's definitely WP:TOOSOON, but perhaps in a few years there will be enough SIGCOV or notable awards to sustain an article. That the two films he was in were by "Nationally award winning directors" does not transfer to him by association. Interestingly, there is also an identical draft of this article sitting in AfC [1]. Bringing it here to the community to decide whether to to retain the article in the encyclopedia. Netherzone ( talk) 23:49, 8 September 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! 07:26, 10 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Hartin's Hotel

Hartin's Hotel (  | 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)

Article fails WP:NBUILD. Despite the significant research, the article is mainly based on primary sources. The secondary source newspaper article is somewhat trivial in nature and the buildings inclusion on the city protection register doesn't seem enough to satisfy notability requirements alone. Quick search online doesn't bring up any further info and I feel it's say to say the subject is not significant. 59abcd ( talk) 23:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep it's designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, making it notable. Proving it is a pain. Ottawa doesn't seem to have an easily accessible Heritage Register as some/most municipalities do. Look up the address using geoOttawa [2]. From the Layer List, select Planning - Heritage - Individually Designated Properties (Part IV). Individual designations are indicated with a purple triangle. 1993 Robertson Road is listed with the purple triangle. I have experience using/looking up buildings in municipal heritage registers for articles here in wiki, so this is right up my alley. I'll email the city for a copy of the by-law, then we can confirm with exact details. This should contain the reasons for designation (historic information) and the date of designation. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    It would be listed somewhere, in the Ontario Heritage Act register, the CRHP (Canadian Register of Historic Places) or at least in the City of Ottawa's register, but listing it in these places seems to be voluntary or very far down on the list of priorities for local municipalities. the City of Toronto has a wonderful website you can use, Ottawa is at the other end of this scale, where you have to pull teeth to find what you are looking for. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Appears to qualify as a heritage-listed building per WP:GEOFEAT. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment City of Ottawa has sent me confirmation. It was designated under Part IV in 2015, with the designation limited to the outside, stone and timber portions of the building, not including the recent additions or the interior of the structure. I'll update the article in a bit. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:32, 9 September 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! 08:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Roshan Bikram Thakuri

Roshan Bikram Thakuri (  | 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 a notable Film director. Most of the sources which are provided are non-rs. And the international film award which is mentioned here [3] is about the film not directly to the director and the director doesn't meet WP:BIO and is WP:TOOSOON to be here on Wikipedia. DIVINE ( talk) 18:52, 18 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Oppose Dear DIVINE, thanks for bring in the issues here, I reviewed and checked all the references on the base of your aforementioned statement to delete the articles. Everything seems up to date with reliable information backed by references. Could you rather mention what need to be improved and add apart from nominating here for deletion. Every contribution matters, I will appreciate yours. Also, please make sure it's not a aftermath of these conversations backed by your personal outburst. Thanks - Nabin K. Sapkota ( talk) 21:31, 18 August 2022 (UTC) reply
It is the deletion discussion and the sources that you have provided on the articles don't meet WP:RS. Even before XFD, I tried to find some sources in either the Nepali language or English and didn't find any that supported the notability of the director per WP:DIRECTOR. If you do have some sources then you are free to add to the article and remove Nnn-RsSPR kinds of stuff too. DIVINE ( talk) 22:12, 18 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 21:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Would like to hear some more opinions on this one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. The main problem with the sources cited in the article is that although they briefly mention Thakuri, they don't discuss him "directly and in detail" as the GNG requires. (Some are also of dubious reliability, as noted above.) My searches didn't find any coverage that would move the needle in terms of notability, and I'm not seeing a strong argument that WP:NCREATIVE is met, so he doesn't seem to be notable at this time, though that may of course change in the future. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 06:01, 9 September 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! 22:43, 15 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Matthew Moss (footballer)

Matthew Moss (footballer) (  | 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 lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 22:33, 8 September 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 Redbank, Queensland#Amenities. Liz Read! Talk! 21:37, 15 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Redbank Plaza

AfDs for this article:
Redbank Plaza (  | 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 declined the PROD since it was deleted at AfD, but the concerns raised there still remain and a BEFORE shows no coverage to indicate this is a notable mall. It exists, but this is a borderline A7 if not for the prior AfD Star Mississippi 22:08, 8 September 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. Vanamonde ( Talk) 11:21, 16 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Cones Lake

AfDs for this article:
Cones Lake (  | 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 is/was a small private artificial lake or pond. There is insufficient coverage to meet GNG. All sources are just maps or databases. The article was not deleted in the prior AFD due to confusion with Bass Lake (Watauga County, North Carolina), also known as Cone Lake, which had not been written at the time. Since then, the other article was developed, partially with sources identified during the first AFD of this article. After sorting out which sources were about which lake, there is not enough left to show this one is notable. MB 22:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep: I disagree with your categorization of Cone lake being attributed to Bass Lake instead of this lake. The publications that are cited in the article have no indication that they are discussing Bass Lake instead of Cones Lake, and if we were to make assumptions, it seems more likely that Cones lake was also referred to as Cone lake. Also, the lake is on land owned by a land trust, and was once open to the public. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and although this lake is no longer owned publicly does not mean it should not have its own page. KyleGorczynski ( talk) 22:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply
I don't understand what you are saying. The sources in this article are about Cones Lakes. There are three maps and a database. We only have articles on topics that have in-depth coverage and this is not in-depth coverage. The other sources I mentioned are not used in this article, but they were mistakenly used in the prior AFD. MB 22:42, 8 September 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! 20:31, 15 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Ilnur Gabdullin

Ilnur Gabdullin (  | 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)

Another semi-pro footballer that isn't even close to passing WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Searches in Google News and DDG failed to yield anything significant. Does not seem to meet any current guideline and would have even failed under the old guidelines WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:FOOTYN. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:48, 8 September 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 merge to Abdul Majeed Khan Achakzai. Liz Read! Talk! 20:30, 15 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Zarghoon road killing

Zarghoon road killing (  | 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:NOTNEWS. –– FormalDude (talk) 20:19, 8 September 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. Wrong venue: please use the Requested moves process to rename the article if desired. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 13:10, 15 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Kids these days

Kids these days (  | 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)

Inadequate terminology in title. I do not think this article has a good title, and it might as well be replaced with other terms, like Criticism of Gen Z. Moreover, the article's a stub. BrightSunMan ( talk) 19:58, 8 September 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. Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Himanee Bhatia

Himanee Bhatia (  | 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)

Contested draftification. Negligible improvement since it was returned to draft. Fails WP:NACTOR, fails WP:NAUTHOR 🇺🇦  FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 hindustanitimes.com An interview No Yes Yes No
2 newindianexpress.com Announcement of a film No Yes Yes No
3 timesofindia.com An interview No Yes No No
4 lehren.com Promotional piece about one of her books No Yes Yes No
5 amazon.in Page for one of her poetry books No No N/A No
6 mid-day.com Another interview, about her career No Yes Maybe No
7 outlookindia.com Blocked by antimalware
8 zeenews.india.com Review of Decoupled Yes Not about subject Yes No
9 indianewengland.com Another interview No Yes Probably No
10 tribuneindia.com And another interview No Yes Yes No
11 cinemaexpress.com An interview about one of her films No Yes Yes No
12 glamsham.com Yet another interview No Yes Yes No
13 perfectwomanmagainzeandevents.com Blurb about a phony award. No Yes Probably not No

Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:03, 9 September 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 11:12, 11 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Gapochka

AfDs for this article:
Gapochka (  | 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. Half-finished article. Been on the cat:nn list for 10+ years. Never been referenced. Never been updated. scope_creep Talk 15:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:37, 8 September 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, and I was close to declaring this an outright "keep". By numbers, the discussion is roughly evenly divided. The keep side has pointed to some coverage in publications like the New Yorker, there is merit to that argument. Several of the comments on the "delete" side, Oaktree b being an exception, were rather sparse since they just asserted that a notability guideline wasn't passed. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC) reply

David Friedberg

David Friedberg (  | 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)

Unable to locate WP:THREE in the article. Sources only has passing mentions about the subject. DavidEfraim ( talk) 14:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC) Struck for being a sockpuppet. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 04:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep Subject was featured prominently (not "passing mention") in two New Yorker articles, one CNBC article, and controversially sold his previous company for $1.1B; subject co-hosts a top business and investing podcast. Henrytudoreight ( talk) 23:18, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete in particular, patents aren't used for notability here, and having a photo on Wikimedia Commons is as simple as uploading one, it does nothing for the notability criteria here. The article is mostly passing mentions in sources; linked in doesn't help support notability. Oaktree b ( talk) 16:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    Keep Again, subject was featured prominently (not "passing mention") in two New Yorker articles (three if you count a lengthy rebuttal from the reporter), prominently in one CNBC article, and controversially sold previous company for $1.1B; subject co-hosts a top business and investing podcast; has more than 100K twitter followers. Consider removing LinkedIn link. Henrytudoreight ( talk) 02:36, 3 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    Struck bolded keep as a duplicate. Comment still stands. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 19:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    Keep Again, subject is notable in the entrepreneur, investor, and food science community. "Notable" being evidenced by significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic". Having 32 patents is notable. Having sold a company for over $1B is notable. Having been a capital investor in 5 early stage companies in the past and having 5 companies in his current portfolio is notable. Having a photo on Wikimedia Commons is not as simple as uploading one. It must have the appropriate license to be allowed. Subject was a guest lecturer at the Stanford entrepreneur program. Subject was also prominently the focus of two Wall Street Journal articles. Enik the Sleestak ( talk) 13:30, 3 September 2022 (UTC) reply
You can't "vote" more than once so I have struck your second Keep. Feel free to comment. Liz Read! Talk! 05:40, 4 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Comment The WSJ articles might help support notability, but the paywall won't let me in. Uploading a photo to Commons with the proper license is something anyone can do, it doesn't help GNG here. Patents and twitter followers are a nice addition to an article, but are gravy. We need RS or this isn't much of an article. Selling a company for a gazillion dollars is noteworthy, but not wiki notable without sourcing about the subject of the article. What I can find are press announcements and routine funding press releases. Sure he was a guest lecturer, show us the RS so we can beef up the article and possibly keep it. Oaktree b ( talk) 03:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC) reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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! 20:24, 15 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Arie Trouw

Arie Trouw (  | 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)

Nothing indicates notability and there is no significant coverage. Fails GNG DavidEfraim ( talk) 13:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC) (sock strike) Liz Read! Talk! 06:18, 3 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:26, 8 September 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! 08:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC) reply

David Hartin

David Hartin (  | 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)

Article fails WP:BIO. The only mention of the individual in question within secondary sources seems to be regarding the rebuilding of a relatively insignificant local hotel. All other information in the article is based on primary sources and of very little notability. 59abcd ( talk) 11:24, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:23, 8 September 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, obviously. Sam Walton ( talk) 18:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Death of Elizabeth II

Death of Elizabeth II (  | 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)

Article fits significantly better as a section of the main Queen Elizabeth II Article. This article is not significantly different from parts of the main article. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 18:09, 8 September 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 delete. Deleted per G5 - creator was a CU-confirmed sock of a blocked user. Girth Summit (blether) 18:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Nagesh Koirala

Nagesh Koirala (  | 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)

Previously deleted via PROD; non-notable local politician, fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Curbon7 ( talk) 18:00, 8 September 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! 20:21, 15 September 2022 (UTC) reply

CoryLavel

CoryLavel (  | 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)

BostonMensa ( talk) 17:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply

COI, INABLE TO FIND sufficient independent sources BostonMensa ( talk) 17:47, 8 September 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. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 17:34, 15 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Hugo Eyre

Hugo Eyre (  | 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)

Former professional player with two appearances in the Segunda División of Spain and, apart from that, just an amateur career. Most recent report is him playing in Sicilian amateur regional football at Virtus Ispica and Pro Favara (fifth tier) [6]. All I could find is just transfer reports, stats pages and little more [7] which makes me think he fails WP:GNG. Angelo ( talk) 16:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply

@ MarchOfTheGreyhounds:, I found [14]. Also, one of the sources above is from Marca, a nationwide newspaper. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk) 15:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC) reply
Nice work, Das. You've convinced me to change my !vote. MarchOfTheGreyhounds ( talk) 18:35, 9 September 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! 07:29, 10 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Alabama Motorsports Park

Alabama Motorsports Park (  | 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)

Proposed sports venue that was never built. Only significant coverage comes from the venue's own website and a few articles in the local paper. Hirolovesswords ( talk) 14:10, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply

There's a few more wider articles on it:
ESPN - https://www.espn.co.uk/racing/news/story?id=2584548&seriesId=2
Road Racing World - https://www.roadracingworld.com/news/proposed-alabama-motorsports-park-to-include-35-mile-road-course/
However appreciate the broadness of information may not be enough.
Hopscotch27 ( talk) 20:00, 4 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs a GNG-based source search/evaluation. Reminder that things that do not physically exist yet can pass the GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 16:24, 8 September 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 11:15, 13 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Computer Hearts

Computer Hearts (  | 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)

Article about a short film, not properly referenced as passing WP:NFO. The notability claim here is that it won the Audience Choice award at a minor film festival, sourced only to that festival's own self-published website about itself -- but our notability criteria for films only confer notability based on awards from major, internationally prominent film festivals (TIFF, Cannes, Berlin, Sundance, Venice, etc.) whose awards get covered by reliable sources as news, and a non-notable award that doesn't get media coverage cannot make its winners notable for winning it.
But the rest of the referencing here is to WordPress blogs (many of which are defunct) rather than WP:GNG-worthy sources, which means it can't be claimed to pass the notability criteria for films on "critical attention" grounds either. Bearcat ( talk) 14:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No participants so far.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 16:20, 8 September 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! 05:13, 12 September 2022 (UTC) reply

McAllister Olivarius

AfDs for this article:
McAllister Olivarius (  | 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)

Im unable to find significant coverage on the company that meets WP:NCORP. Article does not meet the guidelines for companies. DavidEfraim ( talk) 13:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 14:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A non-sock voted delete. Cannot make a decision based on the nominator's sockpuppetry alone.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 16:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep There are numerous reliable sources. My one concern is that the articles are mainly about court cases in which the firm participated. However, since the firm is talked about in those cases I assume that establishes notability. Lamona ( talk) 02:57, 10 September 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. Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:33, 16 September 2022 (UTC) reply

G47 Nenjiang–Dandong Expressway

G47 Nenjiang–Dandong Expressway (  | 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)

Full of creator's own original researches and misreading of sources, all available sources don't show anything where "G47" and/or the expressway name mentioned. Liuxinyu970226 ( talk) 07:15, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and China. Shellwood ( talk) 07:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:V, I searched for "G47" and the two Chinese names on Baidu and did not found no news articles or even government press releases discussing it. Jumpytoo Talk 05:41, 2 September 2022 (UTC) Changing vote to Delete the redirect only, while keeping the G4512 article which is a verifiable expressway. Jumpytoo Talk 05:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    There's literally a map of the route on the Baike page??
    Your allegations are potentially fabricated. Dennis Dartman ( talk) 14:51, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    Baidu Baike is an open wiki. Anyone can upload anything onto there, so it is user-generated content and not reliable, unless you can show where the image originally came from. Regardless, it is so small I can't pull out any useful information about it. The third source, while also WP:UGC and unreliable, claims (Google translated): Due to the few records of G47 on the Internet Therefore, it is believed that G47 does not exist. Jumpytoo Talk 18:28, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Originally I was just going to say delete for much of the same reasons as above, but now in addition to that I'm also going to ask for User:Dennis Dartman to be banned indefinitely from Wikipedia without the possibility of parole. From the looks of their editing behavior, they are a WP:SPA who is only here to negatively contribute to the encyclopedia by means of disruptive editing. This article is a WP:HOAX with no factual basis. G47 does not exist. George Huntley ( talk) 15:03, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    No? I didn't create my account just to make this article? And I made this article because it does exist, Chinese and American maps depict it, signs for it have been erected, etc.?
    Honestly, from the looks of your contributions, it looks like you're ironically more of a single-purpose account, considering that all of your edits up until now have been about Egg Fu Yong (or other recipes or spelling variants thereof). Dennis Dartman ( talk) 15:14, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. This sounds more like the name of a highway project and not a current highway. I am not sure it meets GNG. Plenty of contract bidding disclosures from the local government [15] and there is one article about the building process in Google Scholar [16]. There is even one article mentioning its code name S47 (not G47) from a 2011 report [17]. However, the highway between Nengjiang and Baicheng, the only built part of this project, is now coded as G4512 [18], which means it now part of the G45 and not going all the way to Dandong as originally planned. -- Skyfiler ( talk) 23:41, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    Comment: Do you know how the NTHS works? S stands for 省, which means "province" in Chinese. G stands for 国, which means "country" in Chinese. They are akin to state routes and interstate highways respectively in America.
    Now, if you look at the actual route of the expressway, you will see that Nenjiang, G47's northern terminus, is in Heilongjiang province, and that Dandong, G47's southern terminus, is in Liaoning province. Furthermore, Jilin province is in the middle. Unlike often in the United States, the Chinese practice is typically for each province to maintain its own network of S-class expressways, and numbers are rarely, if ever, shared between provinces across boundary lines.
    Notwithstanding these arguments, I have moved the G47 article to G4512, which did not exist hitherto. Dennis Dartman ( talk) 00:40, 4 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    Well, I guess the reason why you were believing that G47 exists, is probably because of the Baidu Maps (百度地图), where it marked G47 on the affected sections just south of Baicheng. In this case:
    1. I've reported their typo on numbering, and is waiting for Baidu's response.
    2. Due to the Restrictions on geographic data in China, many of the coordinates provided by Mainland Chinese maps providers are not trustful. While this panorama don't directly affect the quality of sources of highway numbering systems, I'm afraid, that Baidu Maps did a very bad god name-based behavior on misrepresenting of local govt's plans.
    3. Baidu Maps started providing routes in other countries since (IIRC) 2018, by just forking OpenStreetMap's datas with largely censored sensetive names, and even without attributions about OSM's copyrights (I believe that attributions are also required by ODbL, the license OSM is currently using). Also after Pelosi's visit to Taiwan, they drew a imaginary route between Pingtan and Hsinchu on their mobile apps, it currently only works for navigations so you couldn't saw it easily, mean that you could plan your navigation routes to e.g. Taipei 101 (better try it, you could see that imaginary route "跨海大桥（拟建设）" as a blue dotted line).
    Due to those problem, I would propose via WP:RSN when I have time, to treat Baidu Maps' quality as same level of Baidu Baike. Liuxinyu970226 ( talk) 23:09, 4 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    If you're under the impression that Baidu's treating the Taiwan Strait bridge as an already-built structure, I'm sure you'd be happy to know that "拟建设" means "to be built" or "under planning"!
    But from my personal experience both inside and outside of Mainland China, I'd have to agree that Baidu (or other domestic mapping services, like Gaode Ditu/Amap) are many times better than anything Google has to offer, which shouldn't exactly be too surprising considering the restrictions on geographic data in China. Dennis Dartman ( talk) 22:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    It should also be mentioned that G47 has appeared on many different mapping services, including Google Maps. Dennis Dartman ( talk) 23:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    These are also typos as concerned by OpenStreetMap Wiki, see Copyright Easter Eggs. Liuxinyu970226 ( talk) 05:17, 6 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Suppose it's built by individual provinces concurrently, then the section between Benxi and Dandong should be part of this highway. However this section is called G1113 by now [19]. I am not sure if there is any in depth coverage independent of the local government (local government web site and newspaper are not independent sources) on this project. -- Skyfiler ( talk) 15:48, 5 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 15:11, 8 September 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 delete. CSD G5, sockpuppet of Ijumdiya wadzani. Now that you have located these sources, feel free to recreate this article, maybe in Draft space. Liz Read! Talk! 21:19, 12 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Kiriku

Kiriku (  | 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)

User who declined G11 suggested bringing this article to AFD. None of the sources seem like good RS (they're somewhat promotional) and a Google search only found his YT videos. dud hhr Contribs(he/they) 14:52, 8 September 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. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 17:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Hunt to Kill

Hunt to Kill (  | 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)

So, this film keeps having a "notability" tag added to it. It has 3 Critic Reviews at Rotten Tomatoes, which I feel makes it pass WP:NFILM, 2 of which I added to the article. One, Common Sense Media is listed at WP:RSP. There is another review (that isn't cited in the article) from Dread Central [24], listed at WP:HORROR/S as reliable.

Another editor doesn't think they qualify as SIGCOV and added back the tag after I removed it. Instead of getting into an edit war, I offer up the article to everyone to comment on it. Is this film notable enough to have an article (which I believe it is), or is it not notable and therefore should be deleted? DonaldD23 talk to me 14:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Also, Dread Central is pretty significant in the horror community. Not only did they run their own convention, but they also opened up a video line. They've won a Rondo Hatton Classic Horror Award, which has been likened to a "horror Oscar" by Entertainment Weekly and (the awards) have been pretty widely covered. A review from them would easily be considered a RS. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Basically, I kind of take exception to the idea that a reviewer has to be known akin to Siskel and Ebert or review for a major publication like the New York Times in order to be seen as a RS. Dread Central is extremely well known within the horror fandom and is pretty well respected. They do cross over sometimes into action and whatnot since there are overlapping fandoms. It's very, VERY common for wrestling and action fans to have an interest in horror, which is why Dread Central will sometimes review films that delve into either area.
The term "nationally known" is also kind of vague. What's known to one isn't to another. A reviewer really only being known within their genre doesn't mean that they're not a RS. I'm not arguing for some random blogger, but rather a staff reviewer for a known and respected horror website. It's not some random fly by night deal and Foywonder has been reviewing for Dread Central for an extremely long time, as in decades. They have reviews going back to 1999. Sorry for the long post, but it's not the first time people have pushed back against mainstream genre websites as sources on Wikipedia. It's just frustrating to have to continually make the case that extremely well known and notable websites/outlets should continue to be seen as reliable sources. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply
FTR, Dread Central probably meets that criteria (though more for horror films than for an "action film" like this one), and LA Times certainly does (though I can't check that one here because it's behind a paywall), but Common Sense Media and Future Movies UK almost certainly do not meet that criteria. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 15:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply
CSM is a reliable source. Sorry that the THREE discussions about Common Sense Media all determined that it is. Can you explain why your opinion overrides Wikipedia consensus? DonaldD23 talk to me 17:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply
Can you explain why you think Common Sense Media, or pretty much any "website reviews", qualifies as "nationally known critics"?! Because that seriously seems to be your view – that pretty much any "website review" counts. It doesn't. That is specifically why WP:NFILM is written with the qualification being "nationally known critics" – that means, Variety, LA Times, Entertainment Weekly, etc. It doesn't mean anyone that publishes a review on the web. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 17:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply
Clearly you don't care about the opinions/results of 3 discussions about Common Sense Media, as your view still seems to be that their reviews aren't notable. DonaldD23 talk to me 18:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • With reviews, the general expectations is that it get published by an established outlet considered to be a reliable source. The establishing part is typically done by showing how the outlet has won awards, been covered, and/or is routinely cited as a reliable source by other reliable sources - academic and scholarly sources are particularly good for this. Editorial oversight can also help with establishing how a site is reliable, but having a published editorial staff isn't exactly required for this. For example, MOMA runs a blog of sorts that doesn't have their editorial staff clearly posted - however if you click on the posts it shows that they're written by staff members (former or current) and as it's an official blog, there's some level of editorial oversight. They don't accept posts from random people, in other words.
Common Sense Media allows people to post, but their expert reviews are typically staff reviews. I think that they will sometimes accept user/freelance reviews, but they do undergo an editorial process. They are known as a review website, but they don't review everything. The reviews are reasonably in-depth as well, as they can run about 2 paragraphs. You can also see where they're commented upon or used as a source in things like this book by the American Psychiatric Association and this journal article. Now I don't know that I would use them as a source for health and medicine related articles as there are far stronger sources out there, but for reviews they're just fine. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • It also helps that they are listed on Rotten Tomatoes. The other site I would have to look at to determine if they could be usable and to be honest, if it were the deciding factor on notability I'd be more leery of it, but thankfully there's enough reviews to establish notability. It shows where it's been reviewed but also gives a reasonable expectation that there's coverage of the production out there. It's harder to find coverage for a 2010 film, so that would likely take more digging. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: As a general rule, straight-to-video films, like this, are generally not notable enough for a standalone article. (Yes, there are some exceptions...) For example, can anyone find any coverage of the production of this film?! -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 15:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    FYI...production info isn't required for released films to pass notability, but reviews are. Production info is required for future films to have articles. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    Sure, if your viewpoint is that anything that meets the absolute minimum should get a standalone article. A lot of us have higher standards than that. (It also depends on exactly what you interpret WP:SIGCOV to mean.) IOW, if you are just barely skating by minimum standards – if all you have are a few "reviews" – then it's still questionable that a standalone article is justified. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 17:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    Isn't that the definition of inclusion, meeting the minimum? If an article didn't meet the minimum then it shouldn't be included. So, yes, the accepted viewpoint is that if an article meets the minimum, then it should be included. If the minimum is too scant for you then take that up with the committees to change the minimum. But, until the rules change, minimum is good enough for inclusion. DonaldD23 talk to me 18:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    You don't seem to understand the difference between "can" and "should". It's clear that you think that anything that squeaks by the absolute minimum of WP:GNG should be included, regardless, but that isn't in fact the policy (as per things like WP:NOPAGE – "Sometimes, understanding is best achieved by presenting the material on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so. (emphasis mine)). Once something "can" meet WP:GNG, there should always be a followup question: "Should there be a standalone article on this?!" There is nothing that says that everything than can possibly squeak by GNG should be included here. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 19:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply
Production coverage is only essential if you're trying to presumptively establish the notability of a film that's still in the production pipeline and thus cannot yet show critical reviews. Once a film has been released, production coverage is nice to have if it's available, but no longer a requirement — it's the critical analysis of the finished product that is fundamentally much more essential. Bearcat ( talk) 20:45, 10 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • I get kind of where you're coming from IJBall - there are a lot of films that just barely squeak by notability guidelines and it can get frustrating in those situations since it can be difficult to see how it can be encyclopedic. However at the same time, the guidelines are a little loose in order to avoid being too exclusive and then not being much different than places like Britannica. It's kind of an awkward balancing act from trying to avoid being too inclusive and too exclusive. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply
Thank you. That's always been my view – that we should strive for more than just "barely betting by GNG = standalone article!!" Not every subject – and not every C-list direct-to-video film filmed in Vancouver! (as this film clearly is – and I know 'cos I just watched it!) – merits its own article, even if it can scrape by GNG. We should strive for more than that as an encyclopedia, and restrict ourselves to truly notable topics... But also thank you for looking into production-related sources for this film. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 19:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, yeah it's not the best sourcing, but it's there. Barely squeaking by or not, it's there. Rules are what they are on here. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:26, 9 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Article is improved and passes WP:NFILM. The Film Creator ( talk) 12:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. To be fair, this is an issue that we're going to confront more and more in the 2020s — with many newspapers now cutting back on their original arts reporting due to budget constraints, more and more film reviewing is moving to exclusively online platforms like Dread Central, Film Threat or Original Cin. It's true that not all such startups would be WP:GNG-worthy coverage of a film — we still have to distinguish legitimate online film magazines from online film blogs — but some of them certainly are. And while publications like Variety, the LA Times, Entertainment Weekly or The Hollywood Reporter are obviously gold-standard sources that would clinch the notability of a film they reviewed almost all by themselves, that doesn't mean they're the only sources that count toward establishing the notability of a film. And besides Dread Central, I also see citations here to Screen Daily (a publication that is in the Variety/Hollywood Reporter tier of elite film sources) and three real print newspapers, so it's clear that this passes the bar. I'm not particularly fond of the "two media citations = instant notability pass" interpretation of GNG either, to be honest, but stating a principle that we should "restrict ourselves to truly notable topics" instead of following GNG isn't helpful if you don't propose any specific definition of how we can determine when a film has or hasn't crossed the "truly notable" vs. "technically passes GNG but still isn't truly notable" line. That could conceivably be a topic for discussion in the future, but that would take longer than one week and an AFD on one specific film of debatable notability isn't the venue for it. Bearcat ( talk) 14:57, 10 September 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 14:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Barclay McGain

AfDs for this article:
Barclay McGain (  | 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)

UPE issues were raised towards and after the end of the previous AFD, and creator was a few months later blocked as a sock. G5 declined due to intervening edits by other users. Leaving aside the SPIP/PROMO, it is unclear that there is in fact substantial coverage. I have not, unfortunately, yet reviewed the entire reference list, which appears to consist of "every single ghit on the subject", or close enough, but what I have reviewed is largely the newsorg equivalent of reaction videos, i.e. Alice Expert saying everyone is or ought to be very upset about this and how they don't endorse it.

Going back to self promotion: as alluded to by TheDownUnderEditor in the previous AfD and on the talk page, this is basically ubiquitous among conservatives wishing to puff themselves up and establish their credentials. It is hardly useful in establishing notability.

All in all, I do not see the sourcing required for a fundamental rewrite such that it may comply with our content policies, including WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTPROMO (even outside of the fact that a UPE creation is that by default). Even were it to exist, I do not believe the article as it currently stands would be any help towards that end.

Pinging the participants of the previous AFD: ITBF, Tytrox, Aoziwe, Styyx, Rybkovich, Houmanumi and Swordman97, if they're still interested in this article. Alpha3031 ( t • c) 14:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. I agree in full with Swordman97's comments above, and maintain that the only notable story that broke the mainstream involving McGain (the schoolie's video) would be better suited to being a listed 'Controversy' on the Young LNP page. He is a university student and former political staffer who had some questionable social media posts, one of which had a brief moment of virality. Does not pass WP:NPOL or any aspect of WP:BIO. Houmanumi ( talk) 12:40, 10 September 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 14:36, 15 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Tarun Dhanrajgir

Tarun Dhanrajgir (  | 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)

Bit-part actor. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:SIGCOV. Routine coverage. scope_creep Talk 13:45, 8 September 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 14:36, 15 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Iqbal Institute of Technology and Management

Iqbal Institute of Technology and Management (  | 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)

In a continuation to WP:Articles for deletion/Iqbal Memorial Institute, here is another article about a institution from the same group that lacks any notability, and easily fails WP:NORG. Noting again that it has had (and still has) some secondary references, but no reliable or significant source, nither in the article nor on the web. It was a promotional article at creation for 3 days in 2016 ( Special:Permalink/709542327). It was then converted into a non-notable stub when promotional material was removed. — CX Zoom[he/him] ( let's talk • { C• X}) 13:13, 8 September 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 14:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Iqbal Memorial Institute

Iqbal Memorial Institute (  | 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 about a private school is completely dependent on primary sources ever since creation in 2008. An attempt to establish notability as per WP:NORG went futile after all I found is the school's own website, some (possibly) not- WP:RS generic school listing websites, which add to trivial coverage but no significant coverage, and Wikipedia mirrors. — CX Zoom[he/him] ( let's talk • { C• X}) 12:15, 8 September 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 12:11, 15 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Nicole Sahin

Nicole Sahin (  | 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)

Delete per ANYBIO and GNG. Not notable, no RS Dark Juliorik ( talk) 09:53, 8 September 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! 20:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Robert B. Sturges

Robert B. Sturges (  | 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)

Delete per ANYBIO and GNG. Not notable, no RS. Dark Juliorik ( talk) 09:52, 8 September 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 12:11, 15 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Sterwins

Sterwins (  | 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 sufficient WP:RS to pass WP:NCORP Dark Juliorik ( talk) 09:48, 8 September 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! 07:37, 15 September 2022 (UTC) P.S. FOARP, by the way, XFDCloser still doesn't like how you list your bundled nominations so I deleted the other 22 articles individually. It's not a lot of work but there does seem to be a trick to formatting these nominations. I think you need put the articles above the nomination statement, at the top of the page. Liz Read! Talk! 07:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Sazeman-e Ettehad Shomareh Yek va Do

Sazeman-e Ettehad Shomareh Yek va Do (  | 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 wrote a long delete rationale and it got eaten by the my web browser so I'm just going to direct you first to every other delete discussion we've had about these Iranian Abadi. Particularly this one.

The TL;DR version is that the name of this place translates as "Organisation numbers one and two". the local mosques are just called "Etihad 1" and "Etihad 2". Etihad just means "united" or "organised" and is unlikely to be a place-name. The addresses in GMaps for the location given in the article (which appears to be between two villages) all describe it as Yolme Salian which we already have an article on.

This is just yet another example of the kind of mess that trying to transpose every listing in a directory into an article on Wikipedia causes. I'm also nominating the following articles since they are also Iranian "village" articles including the term "Shomareh" (i.e., "number") because all of these appear to be either numbered-neighbourhoods/locations or groupings of neighbourhoods and not real villages and all have the same failings as this article -

Nb. the redirects above are cases where the creator (Carlossuarez46 who resigned following an arbcom case) appears to have come up with their own ersatz name by removing the "shomareh" bit of the name, but in many cases they have left the Farsi number in (e.g., "do", which is "two") and also have the same failings.

These are hoax/spam articles created by the same editor using the same template and as such bundling is allowed per WP:BUNDLE.

I'll template the articles in the list later with AWB, please have patience. The list is not collapsed in this case because this appears to cause problems for the automated deletion tool used by closers - we'll see if this works better. FOARP ( talk) 08:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply

LaundryPizza03 - Yeah, there's some article titles that throw up warning signs straight away: Deh-e Hut (ده حوت) means literally "Ten Fish" according to Google Translate and is right next to a village supposedly called Deh-e Hut 1 0_o . I take these cases here to AFD because they can be done in bulk here, it has a decisive effect, and it has re-checking of my WP:BEFORE work by other editors, but another big reason is I'm trying to build a case to just delete all of these Abadi articles. So far, as far as I am aware, every single large-scale deletion of Abadi has been approved by consensus and frankly I think after a few more of these passing through unobjected it will be time to take it large scale. FOARP ( talk) 13:51, 8 September 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! 07:37, 15 September 2022 (UTC) reply

The Northeast Today

The Northeast Today (  | 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)

No evidence of any WP:SEC. Fails WP:WEB. -✍ NeverTry4Me⛅ C♯ 08:05, 8 September 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! 07:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Steve Hall (comedian)

Steve Hall (comedian) (  | 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 check shows a lack of sources online or in books. Any coverage out there is almost entirely located in primary/non secondary sources that sell tickets to his performances. There is some incredibly minor routine coverage out there, but nothing more than a passing mention. Came across this while new page patrolling. Article has previously been deleted as an expired PROD - however as the deletion was not via discussion I could not nominate for the appropriate speedy delete. Ultimately, the lack of significant, in-depth coverage means meeting WP:GNG is not possible for the subject of this article and hence it should be deleted. MaxnaCarta ( talk) 07:05, 8 September 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! 05:37, 15 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Milind Mulick

Milind Mulick (  | 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:ARTIST, not notable enough to pass SNG. Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝) 06:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep A totally stellar artist and seems to be an author. Likely passes WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep Talk 11:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - The article sourcing consisted of simple mentions of him; however I added a short piece (possibly a press release?) from Times of India that has two paragraphs on him. A BEFORE search only turned up social media, blog posts, and the Times of India piece I added. Unless better sourcing can be found, it's doubtful he can pass WP:GNG. Fails WP:NARTIST at this time, but I'm holding off on !voting for now to see if book reviews, museum collections, or exhibition reviews can be found. Netherzone ( talk) 00:52, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I've completed a BEFORE search, and unfortunatly all that turned up was social media, listings of workshops, mentions of his brand of paints, and book sales sites and blogs, not not SIGCOV. He may be well known, but he does not meet WP criteria for notability per GNG nor NARTIST. Netherzone ( talk) 15:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment – searching for "मिलिंद मुळीक", the artist's name in Marathi, gives some additional resources. For example, there is an interesting article (approx 3,600 words) in Marathi about him, his art and his books, concluding with an interview with Mulick, at https://vishesh.maayboli.com/diwali-2010kaj/789 (translated version here).
I also seem to get different search results by searching on the alternative commonly used transliterations of his name: Mulik, Malik, Mulick, Mullick, etc. I am still going through the many search results, so will decide my !vote later – life is busy and I need to find time to make a proper assessment. — Hebrides ( talk) 16:13, 4 September 2022 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure if that's journalism, or a user-submitted social networking site, per the website: Maayboli.com, or Maayboli, is an online networking community that connects its members through networks of friends and through a variety of services that it provides to its members. and Maayboli: A Great resource directory and social network for Marathi language, Marathi People and Maharashtrian culture. - it's unclear if there is any editorial oversight, were you able to find that there is? Netherzone ( talk) 18:13, 4 September 2022 (UTC) reply
Yeah I found this part and am a little confused what the website is for. Sometimes it looks like news and other times like a newsletter. That's not a bad thing and I'm not knocking it, I just had problems establishing if this was a news site or a blogging site. Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝) 00:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:GNG ("A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"). After considerable searching I would like to propose the following sources as significant, reliable and independent in order to satisfy the WP:GNG criteria:
  1. An article (about 500 words) in The New Indian Express about Mulick's life, education and art, with a photograph of the artist at work, at https://www.newindianexpress.com/magazine/2017/oct/07/watercolour-wonders-1667388--1.html – this is a significant article and I consider The New Indian Express (founded in 1932) to be a reliable and independent source
  2. An article (over 400 words) on the Marathi News website from the publishers of Dainik Bhaskar about Mulick's work and career, written in Marathi, at https://divyamarathi.bhaskar.com/news/MAG-artist-2296035.html – (translation here) – this is "significant coverage" and independent of the subject, and this news item from DB Corp, India's largest newspaper group, could reasonably be assumed to be reliable
  3. A further article (about 500 words) in the same publication as (2) reviewing his book Watercolor Landscapes Step by Step, at https://divyamarathi.bhaskar.com/news/MAG-watercolor-paintings-2189908.html – (translation here) – again, I consider this to be significant, reliable and independent of the subject
For the record, I have no connection with this artist or with either of the publications – I just came across the article when checking new articles a few days ago. I am looking to expand the article slightly, using information from these and other new references, but have a bit more work to do on this material before making changes. I wanted first to establish notability – after all, WP:ARTN makes it clear that notability is a property of the subject, irrespective of the quality or completeness of the Wikipedia article, and WP:NEXIST means we can consider the above sources before I have cited them in the article.
Comments on the rationale above are welcome. Thank you to all who have contributed to this discussion. — Hebrides ( talk) 12:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:51, 8 September 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 06:28, 15 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Sam Omo

Sam Omo (  | 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:CREATIVE as no indication this individual has had the necessary WP:SIGCOV needed to sustain an article. References provided merely link to the individual's own portfolio pages, more in line with WP:PROMO. Also possible WP:COI and vanity, per article talk page. Bungle ( talk • contribs) 06:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply

The Article didn't reference the artist's portfolio, but to a reliable and different sources by independent publishers.Thus, I still think the artist is worth having an article on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikifixR ( talk • contribs) 11:16, 8 September 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! 03:48, 15 September 2022 (UTC) reply

United States presidential line of succession in fiction

United States presidential line of succession in fiction (  | 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)

We can debate whether the Lists of fictional presidents of the United States, split into several poorly referenced subarticles, is notable; I am sure some would think so. Perhaps (and if you do, please try to improve the mentioned list). But I digress. What we have here is... well, a very minor concept that fails WP:NLIST or WP:GNG. The article/list is effectively unreferenced (there is a single footnote to a primary source in the form of a non-notable podcast). It's a big pile of WP:FANCRUFT, failing WP:IPC of course, and I don't think this even merits a redirect anywhere. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:39, 8 September 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 Jefferson Township, Whitley County, Indiana. Liz Read! Talk! 02:43, 15 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Saturn, Indiana

Saturn, Indiana (  | 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 doing well on searching for this one either, as the clickbait generators love that word "Saturn". What I did find is that there is a Saturn Church on the next east/west road north from this spot, which is occupied only be a cemetery which may or may not have anything to do with the church. This is also a case where the spot was apparently added to the topos from GNIS. Possibly this was a town that didn't last too long, but at the moment what we have is a locale/old post office. Mangoe ( talk) 03:25, 8 September 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! 02:26, 15 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Marysia Nikitiuk

Marysia Nikitiuk (  | 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)

Fourth-best Ukrainian film of the 2010s by MovieWeb. The person Does not meet our WP:GNG requirements as a WP:FILMMAKER Bruxton ( talk) 02:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Not sure what the deletion argument is regarding that first sentence, as the article has far more references and discussion of the subject's work than just the MovieWeb link. There's also the Cannes film awards that exist out there, among others. And there's a lot of non-English coverage out there on her (not exactly surprising) spanning years. Here's just some examples:
  • Desiateryk, Dmytro (March 1, 2018). "Marysia NIKITIUK: "I want to say something about humanity with every story I tell"". The Day. Retrieved September 7, 2022.
  • Lizengevic, Inga (April 4, 2022). "Plädoyer für den Kulturboykott" [Plea for the cultural boycott]. Deutschlandfunk Kultur (in German). Retrieved September 7, 2022.
  • Abenia, Enrique (December 10, 2021). "[ArteKino 2021] La sorprendente personalidad de Marysia Nikitiuk en la ucraniana 'When the Trees Fall'" [[ArteKino 2021] The surprising personality of Marysia Nikitiuk in the Ukrainian 'When the Trees Fall']. Cinemanía (in Spanish). Retrieved September 7, 2022.
  • Deresh, Ljubko (June 2, 2016). "Marysia Nikitiuk: Today's Character is a Bad Man with a Kind Heart and an Incredible Sense of Guilt". Ukrainska Pravda. Retrieved September 7, 2022.
  • "State Film Agency: Ukrainian script writer Nikitiuk receives Cannes Film Festival award". Interfax-Ukraine. May 20, 2016. Retrieved September 7, 2022.
There's more sources to go through, but I think that's enough to show GNG requirements. Silver seren C 03:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This editor marked this article for deletion previously. Myself and others have added even more references since then. Her films have been in major film festivals and covered in notable publications. Not sure what the issue is.
EponineBunnyKickQueen ( talk) 04:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply
Comment: I see that interviews have been posted here as sources, and an award for - Best Script from Central and Eastern Europe. The collection does not rise to meet our guidelines for WP:FILMMAKER from my reading. We have interviews and awards that are not very notable. Bruxton ( talk) 14:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply
Are you making that assessment just based on the above links? They are only four of currently 33 sources cited in the entry, among which are many fully secondary sources, like news writeups ( 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) and film reviews ( 6, 7, 8), among other secondary sources, like seven different write-ups of best Ukrainian films, which recognize two of her projects. Moreover, this is not an exhaustive list, just where I’ve paused in the google results for now. Innisfree987 ( talk) 04:00, 11 September 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. A consensus to delete has formed over the absence of sufficient in-depth treatment in reliable sources. BD2412 T 05:30, 15 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Nigar Helmi Abbasbeyli

Nigar Helmi Abbasbeyli (  | 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 person is not notability, does not meet the criteria. Samral ( talk) 11:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep - Article format is an issue, but person is notability per WP:SIGCOV by the sources cited in the article. PiccklePiclePikel ( talk) 16:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not only does the subject fail notability, the editor who created the article made exactly 10 edits before posting this article on the main space. WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 22:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    You are right in questioning the edit history of the creator, however the topic does meet notability through significant coverage apparent in the sources used in the article. PiccklePiclePikel ( talk) 15:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • I can only speak about the Turkish sources here. Ref 2 from an RS is quite lenghty, however, it mostly consists of "Her work will be shown in an expedition" and then it's a bunch of quotes from a few people. I don't really see much significant coverage about her. Ref 3 from an RS is super short, and wouldn't qualify as significant coverage. Ref 4 from an RS is only 3 sentences long, wouldn't call that SIGCOV either. Ref 7 is the exact same source as Ref 2, so it can't be counted as seperate. Haberler.com isn't considered to be reliable on the Turkish Wikipedia anyway. Ref 10 is from a random website I've never heard of, I don't think it's a RS. Now, looking at the Turkish sources, I don't see a reason why I should be convinced of Azerbaijani being any different. I'd be surprised if there suddenly was a huge contrast between the sources. Considering the nominator is fluent in Azerbaijani (and a former azwiki sysop), I'm leaning towards delete as well. Mind you that just looking at the titles, Refs 1 and 8 appear to be about the exact same thing as Ref 2. Gonna pull the refbomb card here. ~Styyx Talk? 17:10, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    She may as well meet Wikipedia:WikiProject Contemporary Art/Notability≈ under criteria: "has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition" as her exhibition called Legacy of Karabakh is displayed at the Atatürk Cultural Center which is a significant venue and the exhibition seems rather significant. @ Styyx I see why you are pulling the Refbomb card, I read up on it. However, I think this is not a case of refbomb because even Daily Sabah, a reliable news source given the topic, refers to her as "Famous Azerbaijani Artists". PiccklePiclePikel ( talk) 17:33, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
That's an essay, which tend to have almost no value when it comes to an AfD per WP:SNG. You could make an argument for WP:ENT#4b WP:NARTIST#4b instead, which is at least a guideline. However, I think it's a bit borderline. Having a single exhibition, for just over a week, in a culture center that hosts hundreds of exhibitions a year, IMO doesn't make someone automatically notable, and the guideline itself states that those people are "likely notable", not "definitely". I don't think an argument based on barely meeting an SNG is going to convince others to keep what is pretty much cross-wiki spam. ~Styyx Talk? 18:04, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
What do you mean by essay? The article seems to talk about what happened at the opening of the exhibit. "launched in AKM by Deputy Minister of Tourism Özgül Özkan Yavuz, Consul General of the Republic of Azerbaijan in Istanbul Narmina Mustafayeva" seems quite significant, especially in the political-historical context that the exhibition sits in with the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. What are you referring to with Wikipedia:Notability (people)#4B? The exhibition is talked about in the major Turkish newspapers, not just Daily Sabah, Akşam, Yeni Şafak but also the big daily's Milliyet, Hürriyet have entries about this exhibition. So yeah its not definitely notable as most things as you say, but makes a quite strong case for it being notable enough. PiccklePiclePikel@ Styyx ( talk) 18:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
What I mean is that Wikipedia:WikiProject Contemporary Art/Notability you linked above is a Wikipedia essay, which aren't significant at AfD's (as explained by the final paragraph of WP:SNG). I meant to refer to WP:NARTIST#4b, not WP:ENT. The subject barely meets that, but I'm not willing to keep a cross-wiki spam article that only has a claim of notability because they had a 9-day exhibition at AKM which hosts hundreds of those each year. These criteria point that such subjects are likely notable but not definitely, and WP:SNG states that topics meeting such criteria can still be deleted "if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found", which is the case here. ~Styyx Talk? 19:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
Oh yes, @ Styyx, then I agree about #4b, which is basically the same criteria that I referred to in the Wikipedia essay. And yes, "such subjects are likely notable but not definitely" . In this case "adequate sourcing or significant coverage" can be found in the form of articles in the major Turkish dailies. PiccklePiclePikel ( talk) 19:37, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply
I'd like to echo what I said in my first comment: most of these are the exact same source, copied word for word, that can't be considered as seperate. A good chunk aren't reliable anyway. ~Styyx Talk? 06:31, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Styyx I understand your point, however, that is not completely accurate. Other than the English language Daily Sabah article and the Azeri YeniGundem article, the remaining articles originate from 3 separate sources. One from İhlas News Agency, another from Anadolu Agency, and lastly from an article written in Platin by Olcay Can Kaplan. I have re-organised the list of articles so that they are grouped by the ones with similar origins so that this will be easier to see. These original sources are generally reliable given the topic.-- PiccklePiclePikel ( talk) 13:37, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment The bludgeoning by PiccklePiclePikel prompted me to take a look at their editing history. Joined 2022-08-25 and has jumped into AFD with a vengeance, with a knowledge of the process and vehemence of opinion that would be pretty hard to acquire in less than two weeks. WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 00:28, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Thanks, that's a very interesting AfD stats page. Did not mean to bludgeon. It's hard to be credible in saying that there is significant coverage without actually going and finding that coverage to present to the discussion, thereby the reason for my further contribution. PiccklePiclePikel ( talk) 00:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply
Comment Pinging Nythar who has the same concerns about your swift learning curve of the AfD process. WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 02:04, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply
Thank you, WomenArtistUpdates. I encountered PiccklePiclePikel during their third day on Wikipedia, here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tello UAV. Their first few edits were random, before focusing on AfD. I don't know why, but their knowledge doesn't appear to be at the level of a newcomer. They might have used an IP before switching to an account, I don't know. Other than that, the discussions I've been having with them (example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Music of Your Life) have been exhausting, I feel it might be wp:bludgeoning. Nythar T. C 04:16, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Comment So based on the source analysis waaaay up top, she isn't notable. If she's been the part of a major museum display/exhibition, fine, but we still need sources to confirm that or it's a tenuous GNG at best. Oaktree b ( talk) 04:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Also the original creator of the article and the one person who !voted in support of the article seem to have ended their participation on English Wikipedia. WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 16:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    Pickle has been asked on his user page about other accounts, socking? I don't know. Oaktree b ( talk) 03:06, 9 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Nothing in JStor, Gscohlar, Gbooks, or looking in the ULAN artists search. If she was in the Unesco thing, I'd expect her to at least be in ULAN. zero sources found. Whatever thsat art3f thing is, the artists either have to pay to display or they get sponsored; it looks very much like a sales platform, not an art gallery display (going by what's on their French website, [32]. This whole thing smells fishy. These aren't major art exhibitions; she spent a whole 2 days in the Carousel du Louvre and 2 days in Monaco? The Carousel du Louvre is basically a shopping center, Lacoste and Pandora are there [33]. Art Expo in New York is a trade fair [34]... So displaying there is basically trying to sell stuff. She is in no way notable. This is likely a promotional use of wiki... Shameful, trying to represent these "galleries" as exhibitions in museums. Oaktree b ( talk) 03:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete owing to a lack of multiple, in-depth, high quality sources with which to write a biography. Does not meet WP:GNG. Styyx has covered the Turkish sources, I’ve looked at the rest, they are all about an exhibition at the Atatürk Cultural Center and do not represent significant coverage of the subject of the article. My own searches find nothing useful. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:11, 15 September 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. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 08:36, 15 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Anita, Indiana

Anita, Indiana (  | 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 cannot find evidence that there was a town here. That it was a station is amply documented, but that's ab out all I can find. Mangoe ( talk) 03:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per TartarTorte and the above sources. Waddles  🗩  🖉 01:05, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • comment I am finding it impossible to reconcile these various sources. The list of surviving Indiana stations is either flat-out wrong, or they think Anita is at a different location, because there weren't any buildings in the area at all from some time in the 1960s up until someone built a manorial house at the end of a long driveway to the west; before that all I can see in the aerials is a quite small building not all that close to the tracks. Even then this looks self-published. There seems to be something wrong with the citation from the INRD book as it isn't consistent with the book's index. Mangoe ( talk) 04:39, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    Which references were you referring to in your nomination that the station was amply documented? Can you please provide them? They are not needed to establish that the town existed, but would be useful to clarify. Thanks. Djflem ( talk) 08:28, 2 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the above. While I definitely agree there are plenty of non-populated-place GNIS-spam article stubs that are good to delete, I think we need to be careful to avoid catching legitimate populated places, including those that are very small, or those that are practically extinct but with documented history. In this case it seems most consistent with GEOLAND to retain the article. ╠╣uw [ talk 11:30, 7 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete We have a newspaper article which goes into great detail about a railway depot and associated buildings at this location with no mention of a town. If sources describing a town are found, ping me and I will reconsider. – dlthewave ☎ 18:31, 7 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Until we can definitively determine whether or not there was a populated place at this title, this AFD shouldn't be closed. Right now, opinions are split about this basic fact.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply

That fact has been established, so the AfD can closed: Rund, Christopher (2006), The Indiana Rail Road Company: America's New Regional Railroad, Indiana University Press, pp. 218–219, ISBN  9780253346926, Anita is another town along the line bearing the name of a young lady...By the 1980's the Anita was almost non-existent...The state highway department was on the verge of erasing Anita from map, but proponents of the all-but-forgotten town, successfully petitioned to preverse Anita's identity. The town remained acknowledge on paper and was even marked by a roadside commerative plaque. Djflem ( talk) 05:23, 8 September 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 03:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC) reply

SEE-I

SEE-I (  | 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 lacks sufficient sources and is a possible violation of WP:NOT. I suggest deleting or draftifying. The creator has only two edits outside of this page. FAdesdae378 ( talk · contribs) 02:46, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:53, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:06, 8 September 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 undeletion of these articles. ✗ plicit 11:47, 10 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Jang Myong-gyong

Jang Myong-gyong (  | 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 lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 01:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Also nominating, because same quality article and similar events contested by each:

Pak Mi-song (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:38, 8 September 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! 01:17, 15 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Walnut Corners, Indiana

Walnut Corners, Indiana (  | 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)

Another searching issue, in this case because there are several other spots in this state and the next with the same name. I didn't get anything that I could clearly identify with this spot which indicated it was anything other than the intersection which the name suggests and the maps all show. Mangoe ( talk) 00:53, 8 September 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_September_8&oldid=1110514295"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE