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

The result was keep. ✗ plicit 23:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Ghoul (novel)

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

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

Doesn't meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. There are many books of this title, so a redirect to author could be misleading. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully we can get this resolved now. Boleyn ( talk) 18:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep but rename to "Ghoul (Keene novel)" or "Ghoul (2007 novel)" if warranted. I've found reviews and coverage for the film and book. I'll look more to see if there's anything on Newspapers.com, but I don't have the time to look now. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:07, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• I found another source for the film. On a side note, these weren't easy sources to find given the commonness of the title so I can see how they may have been missed. It's kind of telling that I had to finish searching today because there were so many false positives to sort through. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:24, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment, good ol' isfdb lists a review in Cemetery Dance, if editors are a bit uncomfortable about having a review of a horror book from a magazine published by a horror book publishing company (aren't we all?:)), there is also a review from Las Vegas Review-Journal here (incidently found on page 5 of a goog search under "ghoul by Brian Keene book reviews", just a bit of digging:)). so with the reviews found/work done by the indomitable ReaderofthePack above, its a keep, and another save for those underappreciated books unfairly languishing in the nn cat. Coolabahapple ( talk) 20:22, 31 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 14:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep per sources found by Coolabahapple. Criteria 1 of WP:BKCRIT has been met. 4meter4 ( talk) 17:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep, the two reviews are just enough. Jackattack1597 ( talk) 21:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Coolabahapple passes WP:BKCRIT#1 Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 22:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Independent Schools' Bursars Association

Independent Schools' Bursars Association (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Doesn't meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Possible ATD would be redirect to Independent Schools Council, but I think that is potentially confusing. Boleyn ( talk) 21:13, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Agreed, it does not meet WP:ORGDEPTH as the references are in passing, trivial mentions. I searched for other references and found this in the Dictionary of British Education, but not worth adding. Tacyarg ( talk) 08:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete No significant or substantial coverage anywhere. The king of the sun ( talk) 08:09, 4 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 14:51, 6 September 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 13:22, 10 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Dan Galorath

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

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

CEO of Non-notable company. Fails WP:NBIO. Sawada Katsuo ( talk) 23:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 23:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 23:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep. While the sourcing in the article is currently pretty awful (mostly written by the subject or trivial), there are a number of quality sources in google books which are independent and demonstrate significant coverage. The most substantial of these is Capers Jones (2014). The Technical and Social History of Software Engineering. Addison-Wesley. pp. 136–137.; which I added to the article and can be used to improve it further. Given that a history of software engineering devotes a subsection entirely to Galorath and his company, I think its clear he passes criteria 1 of WP:NACADEMIC. 4meter4 ( talk) 18:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep, plenty of significant coverage in books. Jackattack1597 ( talk) 21:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) 🌀 Locomotive207- talk 🌀 00:47, 10 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Deeplink (company)

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

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

The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing ⁺⁺ 17:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. HighKing ⁺⁺ 17:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. HighKing ⁺⁺ 17:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply

*Delete As per nom. Advert of the company. JeepersClub ( talk) 11:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Blocked sock. Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 15:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep - there are several articles there by Sarah Parez from TechCruch and I can't see any reason to think she isn't independent of the subject. She's not a "non-staff contributor" (in a manner that might make her work the sort of "dependent coverage" that WP:NCORP discourages), she's an on-staff reporter and has been since 2011. But given that we consider multiple instances of coverage by the same source to be a single source for our purposes here, there are a number of other similar instances of coverage. The fact that the subject's CEO has been quoted by the journalist does not make the journalist no longer independent, nor does it make the CEO the "source" of that coverage (a logical fallacy). St★lwart ¹¹¹ 02:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Stalwart111. 4meter4 ( talk) 19:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 01:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC) reply

The Fading

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

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

I feel like this should be discussed. It's a borderline meet of WP:NBAND at best, not seeming to meet any other criterion than perhaps #7: "Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city". The scene in question being Israeli melodic death metal. And maybe not that either? Geschichte ( talk) 19:50, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 19:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 19:58, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete. This article failed WP:BAND as the band is non-notable. They failed to chart since formation and every source I found is unreliable, non-independent, trivial, and poorly sourced. They never appeared in local or national news, which is one of the major factors this band is non-notable. Based on what I searched on Google, the band rarely appears, even on news articles. With that being said, The Fading should never have a Wikipedia article. A2013a ( talk) 23:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment Their album has several reviews ( see here) so that's a good start. I am neutral at this time. GhostDestroyer100 ( talk) 08:07, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply

@ GhostDestroyer100: Album reviews don't count as criteria for notability. See WP:INHERITED for more information. A2013a ( talk) 11:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Sorry, I came from huwiki where they count as reliable sources. But the rules are different here, I know, so I say they aren't notable because I couldn't find anything reliable about them anyways, but that's partly because of the bland name. Anyways, if this goes, the album should be nominated as well because it's just as unnotable. GhostDestroyer100 ( talk) 18:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Is it just me, or is the picture at the top of their article a laughably incompetent Photoshop job? (Magnify it and look closely.) Be skeptical on whether they ever played for a crowd that big. Anyway, the band has gotten some minor notice at specialist metal zines (e.g. [1]) and a few blog-like album reviews here and there. Just not enough significant and reliable coverage to satisfy the notability requirements here, and the article is dependent on fan sites and social media. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 14:22, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep per WP:NBAND #1. gidonb ( talk) 02:33, 30 August 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment @ Gidonb: Can you provide some examples of the band meeting WP:NBAND #1? Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 12:17, 1 September 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Clearly fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NBAND #1 for lack of quality sources that are independent and contain significant coverage. The sources in the article are unreliable such as social media websites like Facebook and blogs. A BEFORE search yielded nothing; although it's possible Hebrew language sources exist either offline or behind a paywall in a newspaper article. Does not meet any of the other NBAND requirements either. 4meter4 ( talk) 19:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 16:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC) reply

DaDaBIK

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

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

Non-notable software release. Only citations are to primary sources, youtube, and to passing mentions stating that this software is used by a specific university. ST47 ( talk) 18:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Despite the flood of obviously-canvassed comments which have been haphazardly thrown onto this page, no additional references to reliable secondary sources have appeared. As a summary, we have 10 links to the website itself, a github repo, 4 youtube videos, and 3 websites that each contain a single mention stating that they use this product. There is no significant coverage in secondary sources whatsoever. ST47 ( talk) 07:51, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply

There are 34 editors against the deletion so far and no comments in favor (except ST47's one). I think some comments in particular clearly describe how important this software has been in various contexts. It seems this has no relevance for the decision though, so I am not sure why a discussion for deletion has been started. I feel sad when I read "comments which have been haphazardly thrown onto this page": people spent time and energy to write those comments, express their opinion, actively contribute to this discussion and in turn to the quality of Wikipedia. Discussions should be one of the principle who guide Wikipedia but it seems the comments have been ignored, superficially evaluated and not taken into consideration. Furthermore, I have received a warning related to a Sockpuppet investigations on my account, so I guess someone thinks I have used multiple accounts to write these comments. Really? Anyone who knows a bit of my history and my level of commitment knows that I would never even think to do something like that. I am pretty sure you have all the technology means to assess that the comments below are not mine (except one). Ugeeeen ( talk) 09:58, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply

That's all nice and dandy, but this is not a vote, and 34 "editors" who clearly are only here for one purpose and who fail to cite any relevant Wikipedia policy, and which were obviously canvassed here, is not worth much, beyond suspicion as to the motives of said "editors". RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 20:16, 30 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:38, 23 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment Could anyone provide just 2 (not more) best reliable sources (eg. reviews in published/online magazines, peer reviewed papers in good journals independent on the software authors)? I´m leaning to delete this one otherwise. Pavlor ( talk) 10:20, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Hello. I have added/fixed several external references to the "Popularity and notability" section, including a Google Scholar link where you can find many publications (also journals) discussing DaDaBIK. DaDaBIK has been featured in popular press as well, for example on PHP Journal (German paper magazine, no more active) and PC Professionale (Italian magazine, still active), during the next few days I will try to add correct references for these as well. Ugeeeen ( talk) 12:39, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Could I ask only for best two of these sources to be linked/cited here for my (and others) convenience? Pavlor ( talk) 12:44, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply

With "here" you mean here in the discussion and not in the article itself, right? Yes, I can do that, but I need time to go through all of them. I will do it within the next few days.

I want to add that I have just read what Grimblefritz wrote on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ugeeeen and I think he/she made a very good point about how to evaluate the notability of a software. I invite everybody to read it. Ugeeeen ( talk) 15:28, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Well, Wikipedia has its own somewhat arcane rules: eg. WP:N and WP:RS for start. Arguments like those used by Grimblefritz have next to no value in discussions like this. Notability issue aside, without reliable source, we can´t even write an article ( WP:V). Pavlor ( talk) 15:46, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply

As I pointed out above, multiple versions are indexed by NIST which is pretty much the gold-standard for notable software. I consider that more of a notability credential than a mention in the back pages of Wired. Medmyco ( talk) 17:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Also here are two links to solid peer reviewed literature citing DaDaBiK: The first reference is from a computer science journal and lists it as a first suggested development tool, comparing a few others packages to it [3]; and the second provides an example of its integration in the study of plant chromosome number [4]. Medmyco ( talk) 18:08, 28 August 2021 (UTC) reply

As these sources aren´t directly available, I need some time to access them (few days at most). Before I look at them, could you please summarize how much space is devoted to DaDaBIK? If it is only a mere mention or a sole short paragraph, these sources probably would not suffice to establish notability of the article subject. Pavlor ( talk) 08:22, 29 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Pavlor, I looked at "Chromosome numbers of the flora of Germany" and all it says is "we used DaDaBik". So I suppose that means something out there in the world, but it doesn't mean much here. Medmyco, what we need is secondary sources that discuss the topic. So that other article might be something but this isn't. Drmies ( talk) 21:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Drmies, the other article evaluates four applications using "The analytic hierarchy process". "In this study, four alternative database development tools are evaluated: DaDaBIK, DataFlex, Oracle Application Express, and FileMaker" [5] so yes, it discusses the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ugeeeen ( talk • contribs)

Thanks. I just browsed the other article (Evaluating distributed IoT databases...). I think it could be an useable source (impact factor is 3.734 and the article author seems to be independent of DaDaBIK). However, as it is a simple comparison of 4 products, there is not much space devoted to DaDaBIK itself (one to two short phrases per evaulation criterion - there are three of them - few tables and a mere mention in conclusions). If this is the best source we got, I don´t think this is enough for a stand-alone article. I will try to find some suitable redirect target. Pavlor ( talk) 07:53, 31 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Drmies, It's a journal, independent, they evaluated software alternatives using a framework. Among all the possible options for database application builders (if you google that, you'll probably find hundreds of options) they chose four tools, including DaDaBIK, and they evaluated those four tools, the whole article is about this evaluation. This should be enough according to WP:N. I have checked about half of the platforms available in No-code_development_platform, they have a stand-alone article and none of them have journal sources.

As noted by Medmyco, its presence in the National Vulnerability Database of the National_Institute_of_Standards_and_Technology is also a pretty solid reference [6].

Finally, if you are looking for popular press, please consider PHP Journal (German paper magazine about PHP and Web development, as many other IT-related paper magazines, no longer published), there is an in-depth review about DaDaBIK that consists of six pages in the Nov/Dec 2010 issue. Ugeeeen ( talk) 11:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Quality of coverage is the issue here. Few phrases in one source can´t show notability of the article subject. However, that magazine article you mentioned looks promising, could you provide more precise citation (author, publisher, issn)? Offline sources are fine, if there are more of this kind, I think there is still a hope for this article. Pavlor ( talk) 15:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Pavlor, I can add more sources but I have the feeling that some comments have been ignored so I would like to summarize what we have so far:

• two editors (including me) pointed out that the presence in the National Vulnerability Database of the National_Institute_of_Standards_and_Technology is a solid source and proof of notability. Do you agree? If not, why?
• When you said "Few phrases in one source can´t show notability of the article subject.", if you are referring to "Evaluating distributed IoT databases...", I don't think this is true. If we want to count the occurrences of the word "dadabik" in the article, they are 24, but does it make sense to evaluate the coverage counting the number of words/sentences? The important thing is that it's not a minor mention, the whole article is about using a framework to evaluate those four softwares, isn't it clear to any expert of the field that they have been chosen also because of their notability?
• The PHP Journal reference: Carsten Möhrke, "Ersteller eines Datenbank-Frontends mit Dadabik" (PHP Journal, issue Nov/Dec 2010, neue mediengesellschaft ulm mbh). Here [7] you can find a temporary picture of the cover that shows that the article about DaDaBIK was one of the cover stories
• PC Professionale is one of the leading IT-related paper magazines in Italy (founded in 1991 and still available). Here are two articles about DaDaBIK: [8] and [9]
• html.it is one of the leading web magazines about Web development in Italy (founded in 1997 and still available), here are an article by Andrea Ferrini [10] and here are two articles by Claudio Garau [11] [12]
• Linux.com, "Create your Web database applications with DaDaBIK", short article about DaDaBIK [13]
• Louie Andre, DaDaBIK Review on financesonline.com [14]

There are for sure other sources and I haven't had the time to go through all the google scholar records, but I think this is already more than enough to prove notability. Ugeeeen ( talk) 18:50, 1 September 2021 (UTC) reply

My short review of your sources:

• presence in the National Vulnerability Database of the National_Institute_of_Standards_and_Technology - a mention is a mention (nothing for notability in the Wikipedia sense)
• If we want to count the occurrences of the word "dadabik" in the article - there is not much real content about the article subject (the only criterion that really matters here)
• first PC professionale - short news (useable in the article, but adds next to nothing to notability)
• second PC professionale - another short news (well, somewhat longer than the previous)
• first html.it - short describtion
• second html.it - short news
• third html.it - another short news (well, somewhat longer than the previous)
• Linux.com - ultra short news with a link to external site with user submited content (note there is no info about staff or editorial policy, not a good sign anyway)
• financesonline.com - is this even a RS? Phrases like "Create a Listing for Your Product" or "Why write guest posts for us? You can tell people about your company and promote your brand" certainly raise some questions. Sure, this review was written by a staff writer, but I can´t take this page as an independent source. Smells like a paid advert site.

Conclusion: Only real source showing notability of the article subject is the 6 page article in the PHP Journal, which we have no access to (well, I will try to find it in library). We need multiple good sources to establish notability of the article subject. Pavlor ( talk) 05:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

I strongly disagree with most of your points. I have the feeling that you just want to delete the page, no matter what:

• financesonline.com "smells like a paid advert site". I don't know how it smells, but this article is absolutely not a paid article, an adv or similar. It's pretty evident if you check the bio of the author "B2B & SaaS market analyst and senior writer for FinancesOnline". Do you really think that a paid review would get, as a score, only 6.2? This would make no sense to anyone.
• Linux.com that's not "user submitted content", for what I see, the author is, well an "author" [15]
• html.it, pc professionale and all the articles you consider short. Two of them are absolutely not short considering the context. Take [16] for example: the "story" about version 4.5 was the introduction of this locking mechanism and the license change. The article entirely covers this story. Can you elaborate more about how you measure how long an article should be? I can't find detailed information on this, what I read is that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention", the clear example of trivial mention that Wikipedia makes is - in an article about Bill Clinton - the mention of the band where Bill Clinton played in High school. I think that's very different respect to what we have with the html.it article I mentioned. Do you agree?
• "Evaluating distributed IoT databases...": strongly disagree, the article reviews several aspects of the subject
• PHP Journal: the fact you can't access the article shouldn't be used as an argument in favor of deletion. I have posted a temporary picture of the cover, I can post a temporary pic with the relevant part of the index, I obviously won't post the entire article. Ugeeeen ( talk) 07:59, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

If my intention was to delete this article, I could simply write: "Delete Not enough coverage in reliable sources to establish notability of the article subject". Instead, I´m trying to find good sources among those you posted (and no, I have nothing against PHP Journal, I wrote above it is a good source, but one source alone can´t show notability of the article subject). From your reply above, it is obvious it was a waste of my time. Note I think there may be other sources like the PHP Journal one and the article subject may be notable enough for an article, but I´m in no mood to look further. Hope this ends as no consensus, because many regular editors would not take lightly such a horrible canvassing etc. and would be inclined to "vote" delete unless really convincing sources are presented. Pavlor ( talk) 08:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Another, additional source [17] Ugeeeen ( talk) 08:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Whoever canvassed the multiple editors who contributed here and said, essentially, "keep it, it's a good product" or words to that effect really did everyone a disservice. There are few things that serious Wikipedia editors hate more than a flood of "yeah sure keep it" from people who've never contributed. And it seems to me that here we have a few dozen geeks (you know, IT-computer-database savvy people) who are all rushing to say "yes keep it", and none of them, including the creator, ever took the time to acquaint themselves with our rules and policies and guidelines--but you are exactly the kind of people who should know how to navigate websites. The current version of the article doesn't have a single link which could be called a "secondary source", never mind an independent one. Seriously, a Google search? It doesn't matter that it's a Google Scholar search: it's the equivalent of "Google it", the standard answer on Facebook to any serious query. I am sure y'all can do better than that, but so far, in this last decade, you haven't done it for this article. Drmies ( talk) 21:35, 30 August 2021 (UTC) reply

I apologise for the involvement in bludgeoning, but sincerely my comment was not intended to do this (and I think my comment was not simply stating that the software is good and shouldn't be deleted). I'm not connected to Ugeeeen and I'm not using DaDaBIK anymore (I used it for a Diploma Thesis of a student of mine long time ago). I understand very well the reasons of the admins (looking for popularity and notability of the software; looking for independent or secondary sources) and I don't argue on this. I would like anyway to add a tiny contribution to the discussion mentioning that also FileMaker, Oracle APEX and DataFlex (i.e. the DB handling tools evaluated in the paper [18] together with DaDaBIK) are all entries in Wikipedia. HTH Danzac64 ( talk) 09:10, 31 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep I have provided several additional reliable and independent sources (see my comments above). I'll add this additional one: a guide published by the Universitat de Barcelona [19]. About 7 pages of the guide are dedicated to DaDaBIK. There are still a lot records in Google scholar to check. I would also like to point out that the notability of the software (and related proposals for deletion) should not be based on the sources currently mentioned in the article WP:NEXIST. Reading the very first message, I think this is exactly what happened with the current proposal: deletion nomination for non-notability based on the current version of the article. Ugeeeen ( talk) 07:33, 3 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Just to make the whole discussion more readable, I'll summarize the references found so far here:

• Carsten Möhrke, "Ersteller eines Datenbank-Frontends mit Dadabik" (PHP Journal, issue Nov/Dec 2010, neue mediengesellschaft ulm mbh). Temporary picture of the cover: [20] 6 pages dedicated to DaDaBIK.

• Alelaiwi, Abdulhameed. "Evaluating distributed IoT databases for edge/cloud platforms using the analytic hierarchy process." Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing 124 (2019): 41-46. "In this study, four alternative database development tools are evaluated: DaDaBIK, DataFlex, Oracle Application Express, and FileMaker"

• Iglesias, Domingo Iglesias Sesma, and Ernest Abadal. "Creació i publicació d'una base de dades relacional amb MySQL i DaDaBik." (2009). Material published by Universitat de Barcelona for the Database Administration students. 7 pages dedicated to DaDaBIK

• PC Professionale (leading IT-related paper magazines in Italy): [21] and [22]

• html.it (leading web magazines about Web development in Italy): [23] [24] [25]

• Louie Andre, DaDaBIK Review on financesonline.com [26]. The score assigned is 6.2/10, this makes obvious the fact the is not paid adv (someone suspected adv, that's why I am highlighting this)

• Marco Fioretti, Linux.com, "Create your Web database applications with DaDaBIK", very short article [27]

• Several mentions in the the National Vulnerability Database of the National_Institute_of_Standards_and_Technology and many mentions in peer-reviewed works stating DaDaBIK is used in projects of many kinds. E.g.:

• Paule, Juraj, et al. "Chromosome numbers of the flora of Germany—A new online database of georeferenced chromosome counts and flow cytometric ploidy estimates." Plant Systematics and Evolution 303.8 (2017): 1123-1129.
• Okunade, Emmanuel Akintunde. "Design and implementation of a web-based geotechnical database management system for Nigerian soils." Modern Applied Science 4.11 (2010): 36.

Someone said "a mention is a mention" and it's true, I agree, however considering the quality of the publications and the number of mentions, I think this last point could still be taken into consideration, together with all the other sources, to prove notability. Ugeeeen ( talk) 09:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC) reply

User guides and manuals are primary sources and they're not useful for writing an encyclopedia, because WP:NOTMANUAL. This being used by scholars as a common tool is not a good argument either if you can't find WP:GNG-compliant sources to back it up. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 12:02, 3 September 2021 (UTC) reply

WP:NOTMANUAL says that Wikipedia is not a manual, not that guides cannot be used as a source. Furthermore, that guide is absolutely not a primary source (see also [28]). But apart form that, you are missing my point, what I wrote is that [29] can be used to prove notability, not necessarily as a source in the article, because - again - WP:NEXIST. Ugeeeen ( talk) 12:20, 3 September 2021 (UTC) reply

But what would you expect to get out of a manual, except non-encyclopedic information as to how to use the software? In either case, it would be a dubious source, since it's essentially self-published by whoever wrote the guide. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 23:46, 3 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Well, in the previous comment you stated that such guide is a primary source and it's obviously not. I think you can extract some useful information from manuals and guides but the important thing is that there isn't any rule that prevents the use of guides and manuals as a source (in fact you can find manuals and guides as a source in other articles). Having said that, I think you are still missing the point, we are not discussing which sources to use in the article but if there are sources that prove notability WP:NEXIST. Actually, this work should have been done BEFORE the nomination for deletion, as explained in WP:BEFORE, regardless of the sources currently used in the article. Ugeeeen ( talk) 09:42, 4 September 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete Utterly unconvinced by the keep arguments so far; given the dearth of acceptable sources. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 12:02, 3 September 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete WP:NOTCATALOG Yes, people use it. No, there's not notable third-party coverage sufficient to write an encyclopedia page. -- rsjaffe  🗩  🖉 23:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom and rsjaffe. 4meter4 ( talk) 13:35, 10 September 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Sharon Alexander

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

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

I cannot find any coverage beyond the single source provided in the article. The article has been around for sixteen years, and has never had more than the one inline source that the current article has. If no one is writing about her, she would seem to fail our notability guidelines, despite her multiple roles. GNG fail. --- Possibly ☎ 23:21, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly ☎ 23:21, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly ☎ 23:21, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly ☎ 23:21, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly ☎ 23:21, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly ☎ 23:21, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom, fails GNG. I looked around for some sources but found nothing outside of her social media profiles and FANDOM wikis. LunaEatsTuna ( talk) 13:56, 3 September 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom - search yielded nothing beyond reference provided in article and IMDb. - Liance ^{talk/ contribs} 15:04, 3 September 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Only appears in IMDb and MobyGames, no written reliable sources. IceWelder [ ✉] 17:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 20:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete Delete per nom here Yaxı Hökmdarz ( talk) 05:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte ( talk) 16:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC) reply

World Council for Comparative Education Societies

World Council for Comparative Education Societies (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Unref article on conference of non-notable organisations. No obvious WP:ATD - wouldn't be suitable for a merge anyway as has no sourced information. Boleyn ( talk) 14:21, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 14:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 14:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment. The member societies appear to be national learned societies and are probably notable. A redlink doesn't mean non-notable; it just means that nobody has written an article demonstrating notability yet. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 15:23, 9 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Ortegón, Nicole Desirée (Summer 2009). "Common Interests, Uncommon Goals: Histories of the World Council of Comparative Education Societies and Its Members by Vandra Masemann, Mark Bray, & Maria Manzon (eds.) Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Center [CERC]/ Springer, 2007". European Education. 41 (2). M. E. Sharpe. ISSN  1056-4934.

     The article notes: "This volume is an indispensable contribution to the field of comparative education that will allow future generations of comparativists to attain an understanding of the field’s history and epistemological platforms. Part I delineates the rich develop- mental history of the World Council of Comparative Education Societies (WCCES). Part II is composed of twenty-two chapters devoted to articulating the history and development of WCCES member societies. Full chapters are not available for all of the member societies, which numbered thirty-six at the time of publication. In consideration of space, editors Masemann, Bray, and Manzon elected to devote full chapters to member societies founded prior to 1995 and with longer histories. However, each member society is acknowledged and its summary information provided. Full chapters are allocated to Europe-based national associations in Germany, Britain, Spain, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Poland, Greece, and Russia."

  2. Manzon, Maria; Bray, Mark (2006). "The Comparative and International Education Society (CIES) and The World Council of Comparative Education Societies (WCCES): Leadership, Ambiguities and Synergies" (PDF). Current Issues in Comparative Education. Vol. 8, no. 2. Teachers College, Columbia University. ISSN  1523-1615. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2021-08-29. Retrieved 2021-08-29.

     The abstract notes: "The Comparative and International Education Society (CIES) has, throughout its 50 years of existence, exercised leadership in the field of comparative education. It was one of the five societies that founded the World Council of Comparative Education Societies (WCCES) in 1970, an umbrella body that by 2006 brought together 35 national, subnational, regional and language-based societies. The CIES has continued to play a major role in WCCES affairs. The relationship has had ambiguities, while it has also provided many synergies for the promotion of the field of comparative education on a global basis. This article reviews the relationship between the CIES and the WCCES throughout their intertwined histories."

  3. Jacob, W. James; Ye, Huiyuan; Hogsett, Miranda L.; Han, Annette T.; Hasegawa, Midori; Jia, Lili; Jiang, Lin; Xu, Shangmou. "Global Trends in the Rise and Fall of Comparative Education Societies". In Wolhuter, C. C.; Wiseman, Alexander W. (eds.). Comparative and International Education: Survey of an Infinite Field. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing. pp. 29–59. doi: 10.1108/S1479-367920190000036003. ISBN  978-1-78743-392-2. Retrieved 2021-08-29.

     The abstract notes: "An overview of the World Council of Comparative Education Societies is also discussed, including its lead organizational role in serving as a historical hub to help comparative education societies preserve and disseminate their respective histories"

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow World Council for Comparative Education Societies to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard ( talk) 09:14, 29 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep: The organization passes WP:ORGCRIT and I have expanded the page. WCCES has received plenty of coverage in academic journals. The sources Cunard provided and the ones I added to the page ( this journal article and this one) pass WP:SIGCOV. Heartmusic678 ( talk) 14:14, 3 September 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep passes WP:ORGCRIT per above. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 10:52, 5 September 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte ( talk) 16:16, 9 September 2021 (UTC) reply

The Curse of King Tut's Tomb (2006 film)

The Curse of King Tut's Tomb (2006 film) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Non-notable television film, lacking significant coverage by independent sources per WP:NF BOVINEBOY 2008 23:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Withdrawn by nominator New information has been presented by multiple editors that has established the notability of the film. BOVINEBOY 2008 14:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 23:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Do any editors here know if Something Awful ( somethingawful.com) could be considered reliable here? Their review (published in part 1 and part 2) appears to be serious but presented in a comedic way, and it almost reads like a blog post. If that is usable, I also have a review from CineMagazine (in Dutch), which I have seen used as a source here before; thus, maybe establishing notability per NFILM with two reviews. LunaEatsTuna ( talk) 04:09, 3 September 2021 (UTC) reply

• I believe that in the past they've been considered a RS as far as reviews go when they're posted as an official review (rather than just a forum post), but to be honest I haven't used them as a source in years, mostly because they don't seem to really do film reviews anymore. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:08, 3 September 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep. I found a bonanza of coverage via newspapers to help establish notability. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:39, 3 September 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep per the reviews found above and coverage from ReaderofthePack (or the erstwhile Tokyogirl79). LunaEatsTuna ( talk) 18:36, 3 September 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep IMDb lists 12 reviews (it says 13, but one of the reviews is in two parts and is therefore counted twice): [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42]. I don't think all of them count for establishing notability, but enough of them do for the film to pass our notability requirements. TompaDompa ( talk) 23:11, 3 September 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep passes WP:NFILM per above. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 20:21, 8 September 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep WP:NFILM is clearly met here Yaxı Hökmdarz ( talk) 05:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Even after excluding the contributions by socks the subsequent discussion seems to cement on a meeting of criteria 4 of WP:NARTIST based on works in permanent collections at ACMI and QVMAG along with contributions to an ARIA nominated album Seddon ^talk 23:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Sadia Sadia

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

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

Neither WP:BIO or WP:ARTIST appear to be met. The only really independent coverage is a tiny bit in She Bop II, with the other sources being primar or user-generated. SmartSE ( talk) 13:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. SmartSE ( talk) 13:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Strong keep She was featured in She Bop II for god sake, definetly keep. E123765 ( talk) 15:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)— E123765 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. blocked as a sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Omniscientmoose42 reply

Comment what is She Bop II? I think I'll vote delete, but I wanna know what She Bop II is first. Omniscientmoose42 ( talk) 15:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC) blocked as a sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Omniscientmoose42 reply

Omniscientmoose42, a book, She Bop II: The Definitive History of Women in Rock, Pop and Soul by Lucy O’Brien. Before voting delete, perhaps check the sources? Vexations ( talk) 16:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply

@ E123765 and Omniscientmoose42: As mentioned in the nomination, the coverage in that book is minor (about half a page). If there were multiple books providing similar coverage, it might just be enough to satisfy BIO, but that level of coverage in one book is definitely insufficient. SmartSE ( talk) 17:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Strong keep Being mentioned in She Bop II is no small feat. ScottishSheep74 ( talk) 22:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC) ScottishSheep74 ( talk • contribs) is a vandalism-only account up for a block Struck duplicate entry by a sock reply
• Delete - This seems like a case of WP:TOOSOON. No independent coverage, an unimportant award (Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts). The artist's apparent website has a news page, but nothing on there looks reliable. I don't see anything in their publications or academic response that would meet WP:NACADEMIC. Suriname0 ( talk) 04:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment user:E123765, user:Omniscientmoose42 and user:ScottishSheep74 are all the same user. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Omniscientmoose42 Meters ( talk) 18:26, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep for now. What makes an artist notable is not press. I have a very reluctant internet connection so can't look at this closely for a few days, but would like to. Please hold a decision. Littleolive oil ( talk) 01:18, 29 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment: @ Littleolive oil has not given a reason for keeping. Do you have one? Geschichte ( talk) 08:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment: I am the subject of this page and most of this is easily fixable [apparently WP:BIO does sometimes welcome contributions from subjects although I have dared not go near wiki for fear of getting caught up in exactly what is happening now]. Please read the talk page comments, followed by the improved article with the corrected and additional updated links. For WP:MUSIC I would hope I pass for "gold album in at least one country" and WP:FILM, "selected preservation in a national museum" and/or "included in history of cinema programme." I appreciate that editing for a multi-disciplinary artist is difficult. This article can be improved, please give the article time to work its way through the ‘request for edit’ queue. Thanks. GreenForestRanger ( talk) 13:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC) reply

GreenForestRanger, it might be easier to list two or three sources that provide in-depth coverage so can we see if the WP:GNG is met. I see almost 100 sources listed in the article and its talk page, and have read all of them, but I struggle to see significant coverage. I do see some indications that WP:NARTIST might be met. Vexations ( talk) 15:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Vexations Thanks for your comment. It would be good for someone from WP:VISUALARTS with a cross-disciplinary arts background to weigh in on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenForestRanger ( talk • contribs) 18:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC) reply

GreenForestRanger, this discussion is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Visual_arts/Article_alerts For what it' is worth; while I am not listed as a participant of that Wikiproject, I do have a "cross-disciplinary arts background". I have access to a fair number of arts publications either through the Wikipedia Library, a university or subscriptions to periodicals. Despite that, and reading every single source ever listed in the artcile under discussion, I have not been able to find the best indication or notability: significant coverage in several independent, reliable sources. I'm hoping that if such coverage exists, you might be able to point us to it. If it doesn't, then please just say so because in that case, we can focus on other ways of establishing notability, like museum collections. Vexations ( talk) 19:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Vexations Thank you for your comment. I'm surprised that you don't find the citations independent and reliable, or the body of the coverage taken in its entirety as significant. IMDB requires third-party verification, Jaxsta is drawn from record company metadata, musicbrainz contains the attribution codes. I think I've provided the link to the Accession Numbers for ACMI's permanent collection as well as the footage of Federation Square, Melbourne and the QVMAG permanent collection accession numbers.
If what you are looking for is press, there is some but I have been struggling with it as, for example, major articles were published prior to digital archiving. Even The Australian, Dec 8th 2004 ‘Screening the Truth’ is only archived as a title in the Wayback Machine, but not the entirety of the article. Studio Sound, ‘Winning Women In The Industry’, November 1990, Studio Magazine,‘Frills and Spools’, December 1990, Audio Media, ‘The Female Touch’, February 1991, The Independent,‘Cutting Through Tape’, Oct.1991, The Mix,‘Fiddling the Meter’, November 1994, BBC Radio 1, Women’s Hour ‘The Glass Ceiling’, TX November 1995, Opus, ‘Sadia: the Equa Project’, October 1996 - none of these are archived. Even Music Week, ‘In The Studio: TUC United Against Racism ‘RESPECT’ June 1996 only digitally archives as far back as 1999. I am frustrated by this and if you can suggest some way around it, or some online resource, that would be great.
Some of this surrounds my work as a woman record producer in the late 1970's and 1980's, when there were almost no women in positions of authority in studio control rooms as record producers. The journey from there to working as an installation artist with work in at least one significant permanent collection [ACMI [ [43]] is detailed here [ [44]]. GreenForestRanger ( talk) 20:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC) reply

GreenForestRanger, it shouldn't surprise you that I do not consider IMDB unreliable; Wikipedia:IMDB explains it. As for older sources; articles have been indexed before the internet archive, and while they may not be easy to access, there is no policy that says sources need to be available online, they just need to be published. I'm getting some hits on ProQuest, and I have found the article by Lawrie Zion in the Australian with EBSCO (Lawrie Zion. “Screening the Truth.” Australian, The. EBSCOhost, https://search-ebscohost-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bwh&AN=200412081014587991&site=ehost-live. Accessed 7 Sept. 2021.), available via the Wikipedia Library. I should note that Zion's article doesn't appear to mention you, so that does not help. Vexations ( talk) 21:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Vexations “Screening the Truth” should do since the primary image occupying most of the space above the fold is mine. I have a photograph but not a scan. The Talk Page article's references has links to Brill (VSAC, Art & Perception) and ISEA.
Here's a few more, with apologies for any duplications: ‘A new era of recognition and voice has begun for QVMAG and the community’, The Sunday Examiner, August 29th 2021; Redmond, S and Verhagen, D (eds) ‘Ghosts of Noise’. In ‘The Model Citizen’. Melbourne: RMIT Gallery 2019; ‘Sadia Sadia - In Conversation with Evelyn Tsitas’, RMIT Gallery, Melbourne, Australia, March 2019; Australian Arts Review, ‘The Model Citizen’, February 5th 2019; Sadia, S "Ghosts of Noise' in Bidhan Jacobs 'Déjouer l’entropie', 'Les Devenirs Artistiques de L’Information', Sorbonne Paris June 10th & 11th 2015, co-sponsored by Le Bauhaus-Universität Weimar & Internationales Kolleg für Kulturtechnikforschung und Medienphilosophie (IKKM), the Birmingham Center for Media and Cultural Research, and ELICO Equipe de recherche de Lyon; The Examiner, ‘Sadia Gains A Sound View of Tasmania’ Jan. 2014; Artabase, 'Metamorphoses in 'A' Minor: Sadia Sadia in conversation with Amita Kirpalani', Sept. 2009; Contemporary Visual Arts and Culture, ’Proof’ March-May 2005; Herald Sun ‘Keeping Eyes on the Truth’, December 2004; 'Proof: The Act of Seeing With One’s Own Eyes', Stubbs, Mike (Editor). ACMI. Melbourne:Australia 2004; Herald Sun, ‘Melting Pot of Sound’, Oct. ‘96; The West Australian, ‘Tropical Heartbeat Meets Technology’, Sept. ’96; Opus, ‘Sadia: the Equa Project’, Oct.96; Rolling Stone (Aus), ‘Equa’, December 1996; Music Week, ‘In The Studio: TUC United Against Racism ‘RESPECT’ June 1996; 'She Bop: The Definitive History of Women in Rock, Pop, and Soul', O’Brien, Lucy, London:Penguin 1995, 2006; BBC Radio 1,‘The Glass Ceiling, TX November 1995; The MIX,‘Fiddling the Meter’, November 1994; Recording Musician,‘Production Lines’, August 1992; The Independent,‘Cutting Through Tape’, Oct.1991; BBC Radio 4, Women’s Hour, TX April 24, 1991; Audio Media, ‘The Female Touch’, February 1991; Studio Magazine,‘Frills and Spools’, Dec. 1990; Studio Sound, ‘Winning Women In The Industry’, November 1990. GreenForestRanger ( talk) 21:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC) reply

GreenForestRanger, that's too much for me to try to look up. All we need is two, maybe three articles that are more like (and I know this is not a great example, but I happened to be reading Salle's article on Janet Malcolm and this was the first profile I could think of) https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1994/07/11/forty-one-false-starts That's in-depth, significant coverage of a notable subject in an independent, reliable source. Can you name two? Vexations ( talk) 22:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Vexations I'm usually interviewed to talk about my installation work in context although the Evelyn Tsitas interview above is a good one. So the arts references are either contained above or in the Talk Page's article references, with the exception of ‘A new era of recognition and voice has begun for QVMAG and the community’, The Sunday Examiner, August 29th 2021 which just opened and includes the permanent installation of my 'All Time and Space Fold Into the Infinite Present (Cataract Gorge)' in its three video channel, sixteen audio channel, forty-five foot iteration in Gallery Eight at Royal Park. There's more 'profile' material as a music producer esp the 'woman in a man's world'. I'm trying to remember which of these were good interviews. I'd say Recording Musician,‘Production Lines’, August 1992, is good; Music Week, ‘In The Studio: TUC United Against Racism ‘RESPECT’ June 1996 was a good profile of me at work on a big project in Metropolis Studio A (London)and is the major music industry pub in the UK; Audio Media, ‘The Female Touch’, February 1991; The Mix,‘Fiddling the Meter’, November 1994; Herald Sun, ‘Melting Pot of Sound’, October 1996 was a good interview around 'Equa'; as was The West Australian, ‘Tropical Heartbeat Meets Technology’, September 1996 (I did seventy-six interviews for the Equa (Polygram) project over a week in Melbourne and Sydney in 1996, I'm trying to remember which were the good profiles); there's The Independent,‘Cutting Through Tape’, Oct.1991 maybe. There's a lot of it but not The New Yorker :) It's nice that you're taking such an interest, if nothing else I shall go to sleep thinking that another person has been introduced to my work. À demain. GreenForestRanger ( talk) 23:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC) reply

To conclude my thought from last night, as you've jogged my memory: In 1996 I produced an album called 'Equa'[ [45]] for Mercury Records (AUS) which was part of Polygram Australia and now Universal. The single off the album was 'Departure', which went into heavy rotation on Triple JJJ [ [46]], the national Australian radio station and part of the ABC Australian Broadcasting Corporation. There was second single 'Samayah' did the same. I think that "11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network" is notability criteria for WP:MUSIC so there might be one to add there (along with 'has won or been nominated for a major award', see below). Polygram flew me from London to Sydney on the Sunday and for the duration of the next four and half days - three in Sydney and one and a half in Melbourne - I did on average seventeen interviews a day - one every half hour - mostly press. Started to lose my voice on the third day. So challenging because you really want to give every interviewer something real and from the heart. So there's a lot of press out there from Australian sources around Sadia and the Equa project but I don't include them because I can't access them.
Of course I went back to Melbourne in 2004 for the MIFF premiere of The Noon Gun and again in December when my single-channel work 'The Memory of Water (Part One)' was exhibited in 'Proof' and in rotation on a program loop on the external and internal screens at Federation Square, Melbourne, etc as discussed above.
I think that's about it. WP:MUSIC I would hope I pass for "gold album in at least one country" and now as well for "has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network"- also 'has won or been nominated for a major award' (Equa[ [47]] - Cat# 1743842 ℗ 1996 Mercury Records Pty. Ltd. was ARIA [ [48]][ [49]] nominated in 1997 - I forgot and have now included it with the précis and links, below) - and WP:FILM, "selected preservation in a national museum" and/or "included in history of cinema programme." If you can access print - as we've discussed above - much press arose in the 1980's and 1990's - in Australian and UK newspapers and magazines - but I've not included print material I can't access but maybe somebody else can. I've included the digitised references I could find on the Talk Page. But I think it's going to have to be taken collectively as a body of work.
If there's anything else that you feel might be important I'm happy to do my best to answer you Vexations but I really do need to step away from this now. Thanks. GreenForestRanger ( talk) 09:52, 8 September 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment
  

Notability WP:MUSIC ‘gold and platinum albums’

David Wilcox Catalogue

Gold Certified - My Eyes Keep Me in Trouble - September 16, 1987 (Capitol, merged into EMI)

Gold Certified - Breakfast at the Circus - July 5, 1988 (EMI)

Platinum Certified - Breakfast at the Circus - May 31, 1993 (EMI)

Gold Certified - Over Sixty Minutes With - July 24, 1991 (EMI)

Platinum Certified - Over Sixty Minutes With - May 31, 1993 (EMI)

Gold Certified - The Best of David Wilcox - April 22, 1987 (Capitol, merged into EMI)

Platinum Certified - The Best of David Wilcox - December 18, 1989 (Capitol, merged into EMI)

Source Music Canada [ [50]

Notability WP:MUSIC "has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network”

‘Departure’ and ’Samayah' from Equa[ [51]] - Cat# 1743842 ℗ 1996 Mercury Records Pty. Ltd. (Formerly Polygram Australia now Universal) were in heavy rotation on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation national radio station Triple JJJ[ [52]] in 1996.

Notability WP:MUSIC 'has won or been nominated for a major award'

Equa[ [53]] - Cat# 1743842 ℗ 1996 Mercury Records Pty. Ltd. was ARIA [ [54]][ [55]] nominated in 1997. GreenForestRanger ( talk) 16:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC) reply

• CommentHi GreenForestRanger, I know this can be a frustrating and confusing process. A few thoughts: based on your description above, I don't think you're likely to meet WP:NMUSIC, since it sounds like your activities were as a producer; see this discussion about producers. You may want to read WP:NARTISTS, in particular #4, which states "The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." If we have reliable, independent sources that identify your work by name as being within a permanent collection, that could be relevant. (For comparison, note that this is an example of a source that does not mention you or your work by name, but it is independent, by-lined, and published by a reliable source.) As with Vexations, I'll repeat the request for 2 (or 3) sources that directly address you and your work in depth (see WP:THREE). The most likely path towards keeping this article is to provide sourcing that indicates you meet WP:GNG. If you can identify two by-lined articles, published by non-local publishers, that are independent from you and your employers and are not primarily interviews, that would be the most useful evidence for resolving this discussion. Otherwise, I'd like to say that being "non-notable" in the eyes of Wikipedia is not an insult: the vast majority of authors, artists, academics, and people in general don't meet WP:GNG, and we can't WP:OVERCOME a lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Suriname0 ( talk) 23:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC) reply
  

Hi Suriname0 Frustrating, yes! Partially because I have multiple times posted or included links to ACMI's own website and their internationally significant permanent collection - the collection metadata of which can be found here [ [56]] including my name, exhibition history and ACMI Identifier (accession ID). This links directly to the museum's online permanent collection records. I don't like to assume so here is ACMI on Wikipedia [ [57]] if you are unfamiliar with the institution.
My activities in WP:NMUSIC were not only as a producer but also as a co-writer on almost all of the 'gold and platinum albums' catalogue (linked above) - verified here from record company metadata [ [58]] and as the artist (I am half of 'Equa' - goes to WP:MUSIC 'heavy rotation national radio' and 'won or been nominated for major award' as you will see under composer/lyricist here [ [59]]). I can also send you the musicbrainz link with attribution codes if you like.
You'll find my work in this article including images ‘A new era of recognition and voice has begun for QVMAG and the community’, The Sunday Examiner, August 29th 2021 - apologies clearly I pointed at the wrong article for the permanent install in Gallery Eight [ [60]] as discussed above; the work was acquired by QVMAG through the Ralph Turner Bequest in 2014 and the Accession Number is QVM:2014:FDV:0001 (you can see the gallery label for the accession details here [ [61]] if you cannot find it online).
For two by-lined articles, published by non-local publishers, that are independent and are not primarily interviews I would direct you to: Herald Sun, ‘Melting Pot of Sound’, October 1996 (Australia); Herald Sun ‘Keeping Eyes on the Truth’, December 2004 (Australia); Contemporary Visual Arts and Culture, ’Proof’ March-May 2005 (the arts broadsheet); The West Australian, ‘Tropical Heartbeat Meets Technology’, September 1996; The Australian Arts Review (2019) [ [62]] (the headline images are also mine); Sadia, S. “Ghosts of Noise” and “What is a Model Citizen?”, in The Model Citizen, edited by Sean Redmond and Darrin Verhagen. Melbourne: RMIT Gallery, 2019; and 'Hartley, John, Steve Kurtz, Mike Stubbs, and Clare Pentecost. Proof: The Act of Seeing With One’s Own Eyes. Melbourne: ACMI Australian Centre for the Moving Image, 2004'. There is also Music Week, ‘In The Studio: TUC United Against Racism ‘RESPECT’ June 1996 (the major music industry pub in the UK). Thank you for your interest. PS. please check out the updated article on the Talk Page [ [63]] if you haven't already.

GreenForestRanger ( talk) 01:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment Suriname0 Please combine sources. "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" [ [64] GreenForestRanger ( talk) 23:33, 9 September 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment Suriname0 There is this article mentioning that her work was added to QVMAG's permanent collection: https://www.pressreader.com/australia/mercury-hobart-magazine/20210828/281668258064885 but WP:ARTISTS says represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, and this is just one. This seems to be a case where a person is just shy of notability in several different areas, which unfortunately doesn't add up to GNG. Her musical group Equa seems like it might qualify for its own article, however - maybe that could be a compromise? Niftysquirrel ( talk) 14:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Niftysquirrel, I don't see anything in that article about Sadia or her work, but maybe I missed it? BubbaJoe123456 ( talk) 19:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Hello BubbaJoe123456 and Niftysquirrel My work forms part of the permanent collection at ACMI [ [65]] and the accession details are here [ [66]]. It formed part of the major exhibition 'Proof: The Act of Seeing with One's Own Eyes' curated by Mike Stubbs. The QVMAG link should have been here ‘A new era of recognition and voice has begun for QVMAG and the community’, The Sunday Examiner, August 29th 2021. 'All Time and Space Fold Into the Infinite Present (Cataract Gorge)' (2014) was purchased with the Ralph Turner Bequest and permanently installed in Gallery Eight. The accession number is QVM:2014:FDV:0001 and can be found on the label copy here [ [67]]. Please see the Talk Page [ [68]] for the updated and corrected article. GreenForestRanger ( talk) 23:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC) reply

BubbaJoe123456 It's in the 11th paragraph. Niftysquirrel ( talk) 00:15, 10 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Niftysquirrel The 11th paragraph in the article you linked (Shaking Things Up) reads "And the gallery's other famous colonial artwork...". Are we talking about a different article here? BubbaJoe123456 ( talk) 14:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC) reply

@ BubbaJoe123456 sorry, I apparently lost the ability to count (I was really tired, I guess?): 23rd paragraph, it starts with "Those new stories include works by..." Niftysquirrel ( talk) 15:05, 10 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Aha, found it! BubbaJoe123456 ( talk) 15:26, 10 September 2021 (UTC) reply

• CommentHello Vexations I've now managed to access the Lawrie Zion in the Australian which you found here with EBSCO (Lawrie Zion. “Screening the Truth.” Australian, The. EBSCOhost, https://search-ebscohost-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bwh&AN=200412081014587991&site=ehost-live. Accessed 7 Sept. 2021.). It does in fact discuss my work, which is 'The Memory of Water (Part One)'.
  In the print version it also features above the text an image of my work as an edge to edge spread. GreenForestRanger ( talk) 11:33, 9 September 2021 (UTC) reply

GreenForestRanger, I get that it mentions a work that you made, but it doesn't mention you. Half a sentence is not significant coverage: ..., and The Memory of Water, an enigmatic installation strategically placed at the exhibition entrance that features several pairs of eyes gazing at us in a series of close-ups Sorry Vexations ( talk) 11:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Vexations The problem is that the archived version does not include the full spread image above the fold. I can't do anything about that unless you can find it. I have photos here but no scans.

I'm afraid that a photo would not make much of a difference. It's still just half a sentence. Vexations ( talk) 12:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Vexations I'm sorry I have to step away from this again. You have music databases that go to me as an artist (Equa), songwriter, composer, lyricist and pioneering woman producer. My work forms part of the internationally significant permanent collection at ACMI - I have provided documentation of this multiple times - the most visited moving image museum in the world - (as well the recent acquisition and permanent install at QVMAG [ [69]]) - and my films have been included in a history of cinema program at the most prestigious film institute in the world the Cinémathèque Française. I have provided documentation for all of this. I have press but I suspect the music press will more closely fit your requirements as published by non-local publishers, that are independent and are not primarily interviews - as it provides extensive coverage of my work as an artist(music) rather than an interviews with me as an individual. A selection is included in my reply to Suriname0 - and in the discussions above. There is little more that I can do! GreenForestRanger ( talk) 12:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC) reply

GreenForestRanger "my films have been included in a history of cinema program at the most prestigious film institute in the world the Cinémathèque Française" Could you point me to the sourcing for this? The citation in the article just provides a link to the Cinémathèque Française homepage. Thanks. BubbaJoe123456 ( talk) 19:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Hi BubbaJoe123456 The link under the Cinémathèque link is the archived programme for the 'soirée exceptionelle' as part of the Cinéma d’Avant-Garde / Contre-Culture Générale. The film 'Lit From Within' is directed by me. I also directed 'San Francisco Redux No.1' (with Anthony Stern and SW Tayler). I contributed to three of the other films on programme as well (producer, editor, etc) but am only claiming the films I directed. The programme was curated by Nicole Brenez the noted film critic and curator for the experimental cinema programs at the Cinémathèque Française. (‘San Francisco Redux No.1’ went on to be screened at Lussas ‘États Généraux du Film Documentaire’. It was most recently exhibited as part of ‘Breaking Convention’ at the University of Greenwich in August 2019 [ [70]] GreenForestRanger ( talk) 23:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC) reply

GreenForestRanger OK, now I've found the link, and updated the article. BubbaJoe123456 ( talk) 16:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC) reply

BubbaJoe123456 Thank you for your assistance, it's much appreciated. GreenForestRanger ( talk) 16:44, 10 September 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep. I think that GreenForestRanger has adequately produced evidence that her work meets criteria 4 of WP:NARTIST and given us the names of offline past publications toward meeting WP:SIGCOV. While more in-depth coverage that is easily viewable is desirable, I am willing to AGF in this case that information provided is accurate. 4meter4 ( talk) 19:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC) reply

• Weak Keep is where I'm landing on this. There aren't any of the glaring notability indicators we in AfD tend to prefer, but I think that her inclusion in multiple notable galleries and exhibitions meets the criteria of WP:NARTIST #4. Niftysquirrel ( talk) 00:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment BubbaJoe123456 ‘acquired by Australian Centre for the Moving Image’. I do not see how it is possible for this to fail verification - this is the museum’s own catalogue of its permanent collection https://www.acmi.net.au/works/109650--the-memory-of-water-part-1/ . I have provided this discussion multiple times with this link to the ACMI collection metadata which includes my name, display history and ACMI Identifier (accession ID). I do not know if you are a member of WP:VISUALARTS but it is not possible to provide a more primary source than the institutions' own catalogue. This links directly to the museum's online permanent collection records. Please revert. GreenForestRanger ( talk) 07:58, 10 September 2021 (UTC) reply

The link in the article is just to "www.acmi.net.edu", which is the ACMI homepage, and didn't provide support for the claim. The link you provided above does support the claim, so I've changed the citation, and removed that template

• Comment BubbaJoe123456 'It featured in the exhibition 'Proof: The Act of Seeing With One's Own Eyes'. Here is the catalogue citation with the ISBN number. Sadia, S 'The Memory of Water (Part One)' (2004) appears on pp 92-93.Hartley, John, Steve Kurtz, Mike Stubbs, and Clare Pentecost. Proof: The Act of Seeing With One’s Own Eyes. Melbourne: ACMI Australian Centre for the Moving Image, 2004, pp 92-93 ISBN: 9781920805104. Please revert. GreenForestRanger ( talk) 08:59, 10 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Again, the citations in the article didn't support the claim, that's why I tagged them as "failed verification". The neither the Artlink magazine article nor the ACMI link (checked the archived version) mention you or 'The Memory of Water'. I've added the catalog as a citation, and removed the other cites and the failed verification tag. BubbaJoe123456 ( talk) 15:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC) reply

BubbaJoe123456 Thank you. I've noticed errors in the article - but I can't seem to access the source on the Talk Page article to correct it. I can delete everything or nothing - and edit the preface to the article but not the article itself - but deleting the whole thing would remove the COI. I don't know why it seems to be malfunctioning but it's been doing it for a while. So I can't fix it. I've tried to address some of the corrections here in the AfD discussion. It's frustrating. The material is out there but it's been a long time since I've looked at this. I also keep forgetting to include things (for example, I also produced The Fixx [ [71]] Then and Now, etc. - I think they were much bigger in the US than in the UK. Anyway, I seem to recall that years ago IMDB used to be considered a reliable source. Apparently now it is frowned upon but the "use of IMDb as an external link is generally considered appropriate' [ [72]]. I'm not quite sure what this means. GreenForestRanger ( talk) 16:32, 10 September 2021 (UTC) reply

GreenForestRanger IMDB generally isn't considered a reliable source, because the content there is heavily user-submitted, and there isn't much editor review. They also take stuff from sources like Wikipedia. The "use of IMDb as an external link is generally considered appropriate" comment refers to adding a link to an article subject's IMDb page in the external links section at the bottom, as I've done in the article. BubbaJoe123456 ( talk) 17:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment Comment: If this article is going to be destructively edited ('failed verification' for permanent collection when primary source has been provided, for example) while the AfD is ongoing, AGF it should be edited or reverted constructively as well:
  

Please revert ‘She also co-wrote many of the titles on these albums’. Please see the Jaxsta catalogue drawn from record company metadata which contains fifty-seven co-writing credits for the David Wilcox catalogue alone. [ [73]

Please revert 12 Aug 2021 "The Sydney Dance Company has two works in their permanent repertoire, 'Unwitting Sight' (1998) and 'Cradle Song' (2001) choreographed by Wakako Asano" was simply an incorrect URL.It is corrected it here and links to the Sydney Dance Company’s archived permanent repertoire."From 1998 to 2007 the Sydney Dance Company under the direction of Graeme Murphy [ [74]] held two works choreographed by Wakako Asano [ [75]] as part of their permanent repertoire, Unwitting Sight (1998) and Cradle Song (2001) [ [76]] with music by Sadia Sadia (Equa) [ [77]]”

Please revert "Sadia began her career by becoming one of the first women in the world to be signed to a major label as a record producer" should read "During the 1990’s she sat as the only female member of the Directorate of REPRO (the British Record Producer’s Guild, now the MPG[ [78]]). In Lucy O’Brien (1996) She Bop: The Definitive History of Women in Rock, Pop and Soul. Penguin. ISBN 978-0140251555 also in later editions pp. 449. ISBN 978-0-8264-3529-3.] and in press).
GreenForestRanger ( talk) 10:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment There is a long list of press cited in the discussion above. Please combine sources. "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" [ [79]]. The page does require updating, some of which I've tried to address on the Talk Page. I am always happy to discuss my work with friendly people (and would in fact greatly appreciate the assistance of a friendly admin from WP:MUSIC and WP:VISUALARTS for edits by the subject as per WP:BIO) but there are only so many hours in the day and right now it is difficult to AGF. Please review the substantial material provided in this AfD discussion as well as the article on the Talk Page [ [80]] (for context if nothing else). Thanks. GreenForestRanger ( talk) 10:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep: the works in permanent collections at ACMI and QVMAG pass for notability, and are supported by the other refs. Pam D 07:51, 11 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: Sources In among all the TLDNR, This is the British Council confirming that The Memory of Water is part of ACMI's permanent collection, and here QVMAG include All time and space ... in its choice of 13 images from their collection. Pam D 15:05, 11 September 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep, meets WP:NARTIST by work held by QVMAG and ACMI, taking part in exhibitions at RMIT Gallery, ACMI, contributions (concept, writer, producer) to Equa, an ARIA nominated album. Coolabahapple ( talk) 08:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment Hi BubbaJoe123456 WP:VISUALARTS please find enclosed updated or corrected citations to improve the article. Thanks
  please remove unreliable source tags as applicable
  The citation for 'Ghosts of Noise' (para 4 under 'Installations', ref [20]) is here: [ [81]] (Pg 45) The title pages and intro also confirm the participants.
  the citation for The End of the Party: Hyde Park 1969 (ref [6]) from The British Council Films is here (edited and produced as 'Chimera Arts' on the right hand side of the page) [ [82]
  the citation for Iggy The Eskimo Girl (ref [7])(edited and produced as 'Chimera Arts' on the right hand side of the page)[ [83]] this might also bring depth [ [84]
  The The British Council Films citation for San Francisco Redux No.1 (ref [8]) is here [ [85]] ((director, editor, sound design and producer as 'Chimera Arts' on the right hand side of the page
  I cannot find any sources for ' Lit From Within: The Film and Glass Works of Anthony Stern' ref [10]. It is a minor work. Please remove.
  
• The British Council Films citations all include my studio address as Real World. Please revert "Sadia is based at Real World Studios [ [86]][ [87]][ [88]] in Box, Wiltshire". (Real World is a major creative center with relevance to artistic practice - the British Council Films site cites this address on every entry and photographic evidence can be found here [ [89]] by scrolling to '2013')
  
• in the interests of fairness
  Please undelete the Sydney Dance Company ref which has now been corrected: "From 1998 to 2007 the Sydney Dance Company under the direction of Graeme Murphy [ [90]] held two works choreographed by Wakako Asano [ [91]] as part of their permanent repertoire, Unwitting Sight (1998) and Cradle Song (2001) [ [92]] with music by Sadia Sadia (Equa) [ [93]]”
  Please add In 2019 'Ghosts of Noise' [ [94]][ [95]] was exhibited as a four-channel video and eight channel audio installation in 'The Model Citizen’ [ [96]][ [97]] at the RMIT Gallery [ [98]], Melbourne, curated by Sean Redmond and Darrin Verhagen [ [99]].
  Please undelete "Sadia began her career by becoming one of the first women in the world to be signed to a major label as a record producer" which has been updated "During the 1990’s she sat as the only female member of the Directorate of REPRO (the British Record Producer’s Guild, now the MPG[ [100]]). In Lucy O’Brien (1996) She Bop: The Definitive History of Women in Rock, Pop and Soul. Penguin. ISBN 978-0140251555 also in later editions pp. 449. ISBN 978-0-8264-3529-3, as well as in press. (this goes to the history of women in record production)

Please let me know if any of these fail verification. I will post more as soon as I can. GreenForestRanger ( talk) 13:17, 11 September 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment WP:VISUALARTS I have also updated and corrected this entry:
  "In 2009 Sadia was awarded a Studio 18 [ [101]] artists' residency at Gertrude Contemporary [ [102]], Melbourne, for international "contemporary visual artists pursuing an innovative practice in a professional capacity”. During this time she produced her three channel work ‘Metamorphoses in ‘A’ Minor’ [ [103]][ [104]] with the support of the British Council (Aus) and Kennedy, Miller, Mitchell [ [105]] at their motion capture stage at Sydney Gate, Sydney, Australia. It most recently screened at Sarah Lawrence 3rd Annual Dancefilm Festival at the Heimbold Visual Arts Center [ [106]] in 2018."
  GreenForestRanger ( talk) 13:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete due to lack of significant coverage failing to meet WP:NFILM and WP:GNG Seddon ^talk 23:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC) reply

2 Sisters (2010 film)

2 Sisters (2010 film) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG. ---- Rdp060707| talk 10:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ---- Rdp060707| talk 10:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. ---- Rdp060707| talk 10:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete - happy to change my vote if evidence comes up to the contrary but, unless there are multiple reviews or significant coverage for this film in any other way, then it doesn't meet WP:NFILM or GNG and should be deleted. I note that User:Donaldd23 did put a PROD on this but an IP removed it shortly after without comment or addressing the issues that Donald had raised. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep per below comment Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment - does pass WP:NFILM or GNG, based on 8 secondary sources and articles User:Spiderone . 5.53.40.13 ( talk) 11:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Thanks for notifying me. On basis of the strength of Javan Online and JJO, which look like reputable sites offering their own independent analysis of the film, I am happy to change my vote to keep per GNG/NFILM. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep. The article already includes two Persian-language reviews. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 11:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply

What makes Seemorgh a reliable source? Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete, even if Seemorgh is a reliable source, that's only 1 review. There are no other reviews listed in the article and none were found in my search. Fails WP:NFILM DonaldD23 talk to me 14:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete: fails GNG/NFILM. Kolma8 ( talk) 00:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply

*Keep Passes WP:NFILM. JeepersClub ( talk) 07:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)Blocked sock. Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 15:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG even if Seemorgh is considered there is only one review. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 20:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete, as per Pharaoh of the Wizards. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC) reply

John Tantillo

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

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

Doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG notability. Even with a WP:BEFORE, coverage of him is either non-independent, or non-substantial (passing mentions).

For some additional background/context: This was originally soft-deleted in a previous AFD I opened in November 2020, and was requested for undeletion in December 2020 by a user stating they would "add verifiable sources" and "readdress any concerns". Since nothing in the article's body has been changed (and since the undeletion request only pointed out the existence of sources that are either non-independent or unsubstantial), I'm opening this for discussion again. Whisperjanes ( talk) 22:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes ( talk) 22:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes ( talk) 22:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes ( talk) 22:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes ( talk) 22:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes ( talk) 22:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I've done a bit of searching, but I agree with the nominator that there doesn't seem to be any significant secondary coverage of Tantillo that would satisfy WP:BASIC/the GNG. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 02:50, 11 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete. he doesn't have any in-depth coverage. Peter303x ( talk) 08:56, 6 September 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{( spin me / revolutions)} 19:58, 10 September 2021 (UTC) reply

The Hope Line

The Hope Line (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Unsourced for 9 years and apparently non-notable. My own searching finds some passing mentions and directory listings, but nothing that meets WP:SIRS. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 18:09, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 18:09, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Update: we already have Francisco Garmendia, this could be merged into that, with a redirect. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:47, 10 September 2021 (UTC) reply

I added a number of citations. I found it's legal name which produced a number of solid sources. The Hope Line sounds like a good organization, to be honest. I believe it is notable. -- Wil540 art ( talk) 21:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Many of those are sources I found when I did my search and dismissed as not meeting WP:SIRS. The NY Times article is pretty good (even if it's more about James P. Broderick than about The Hope Line), but that's the best of the bunch. One of the refs is just a link to a photo??? The BronxNet ref is a classic passing reference; it just mentions The Hope Line in a list of agencies. I don't have access to Disaster Psychiatry so can't say anything about that. The Bishop Garmendia reference is a page on the founder's own website, so not independent. The Bronx Free Press story is questionable. As far as I can tell, this is a blog post, so probably not a WP:RS. The nonprofitlight.com ref is a directory listing ("Data for this page was sourced from XML published by IRS (public 990 form dataset"). And catholiccharitiesny.org is the parent organization, so again not independent. With a couple more sources like the NY Times article, I'd be happy keeping this. As it is, it's pretty marginal. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply

You make good points. I added a couple more sources. -- Wil540 art ( talk) 23:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Just to clarify, my comment about the sources not meeting SIRS does not apply to the NY Times source. That's one that I didn't find myself, and I do thank you for locating it. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources in the article or in searches. Coverage that is significant is either not reliable or not independent and vice-versa. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep. Garmendia was formally recognized and honored by the United States Congress in 1997 for his work with The Hope Line. I added the congressional record to the article's sources. That and The New York Times piece indicates some substantial RS. 4meter4 ( talk) 20:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC) reply

  I think you're exaggerating the significance of this. The appropriate section of the Congressional Record for that day is [107]. Garmendia's congressman read the tribute on the floor. There was no vote or anything formal like that; just a routine reading of something into the record by a member. Probably to a chamber that was empty except for the clerks. These things are routine and are done as a service and a courtesy to constituents. That same day, a volunteer arts organization was recognized for their 45th anniversary, a junior high school social studies teacher was recognized for having won a fellowship, a member read into the record their monthly newsletter on foreign affairs, and the 50th anniversary of George C. Marshall's commencement address at Harvard was noted. In any case, this is WP:PRIMARY, and makes only a passing reference to the subject of this article. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC) reply

RoySmith Thanks for clarifying this through a better contextual lens. I found it through my university library in a segmented portion and I didn't realize that this kind of thing was not unusual. Best. 4meter4 ( talk) 00:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) 🌀 Locomotive207- talk 🌀 00:50, 10 September 2021 (UTC) reply

British Association for International & Comparative Education

British Association for International & Comparative Education (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Does not appear to meet GNG. – DarkGlow • 21:57, 17 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 21:57, 17 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 21:57, 17 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Learned society which is a member of the prestigious Academy of Social Sciences. Not massively written about, but enough sources to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 08:08, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 08:09, 18 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep per the coverage in ISBN  9781134654536, ISBN  9789460912627, ISBN  9781136917998 etc. Phil Bridger ( talk) 08:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep Not a promotion, Precisely written about the organization. Passes WP:GNG. JeepersClub ( talk) 07:46, 27 August 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock. Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 15:28, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep per Necrothesp. 4meter4 ( talk) 00:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Chua Chwee Koh

Chua Chwee Koh (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:SIGCOV. SIM, MINDEF, Certis sources are primary sources (2 press releases, and a organisation chart). Birmingham U source is basically a resume attached onto an event page. – robertsky ( talk) 16:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. – robertsky ( talk) 16:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. – robertsky ( talk) 16:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete fails WP:BASIC. Mztourist ( talk) 04:22, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Lack of significant coverage in independent secondary sources shows that the subject isn't notable enough. There are a couple of sources that mention his name ( [108], [109]) but he's merely quoted as speaking on behalf of Certis. Despite his position, his name isn't even mentioned at Certis Group, so redirecting isn't an option here. ~  KN2731 { talk · contribs} 12:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Cal Langley

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

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

"Biography" of a television character, written entirely in-universe and not making or reliably sourcing any context for why he would be independently notable as a separate topic from the show. As always, Wikipedia is not a fansite on which we keep standalone articles about every individual character in every TV show; we need external analysis of his significance and cultural impact in real media, not just in-show plot details, to make him notable enough for his own article. Bearcat ( talk) 22:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 22:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 22:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete as character is non-notable. Not redirect worthy as there is no list on the characters of the series to redirect him to. – DarkGlow • 13:30, 3 September 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom and above not notable character in a TV show. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 11:18, 5 September 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete. I agree that this character does not have significant coverage from third-party, reliable sources so this does not warrant an independent article. Initially, I was going to suggest a redirect to the show's main article, which does have a list of the characters, but the character name is misspelled here, as it should be Kal not Cal. Due to this misspelling, I do not think this would be a viable search term.
• Delete. Fails WP:V, WP:GNG. User:Bearcat: This type of WP:FANCRUFT should be WP:PRODed first before AfD. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 16:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Youth Against Racism

Youth Against Racism (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

It exists, but I couldn't establish that it has the coverage or significance to meet WP:N. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully, we can resolve it. Boleyn ( talk) 21:06, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:24, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:25, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment. This article may be expanded with text translated from the corresponding article in Swedish, sv:Ungdom mot rasism Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 21:28, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

except that none of those sources helps demonstrate notability under WP:NCORP. If that’s all there is, the topic isn’t notable. Mccapra ( talk) 10:22, 27 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP for lack of independent and significant RS. 4meter4 ( talk) 20:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 16:53, 10 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Shafiq Mureed

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

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

BLP is still unsourced, and the user who requested for this article to be restored didn't fix the problems. A Google search looks to me that this person is not notable yet. pandakekok9 ( talk) 14:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment - found a few sources but not sure if it's enough BBC, khpalwaak, Hunaristan - not a great amount of depth Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:15, 19 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 ( talk) 20:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 16:54, 10 September 2021 (UTC) reply

AKM Nazir Ahmed

AKM Nazir Ahmed (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

• Fails WP:POLITICIAN
  • Not a member of legislative body.
  • No in depth and independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists found. - Owais ^Talk 09:52, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep The person in question (now deceased) was a top official of Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami, which participated as a legal political party in all Bangladesh elections until 2013. The political party to which the personality in question belongs to has won multiple seats in consecutive national elections as Members of Parliament, unlike other Islamic parties in Bangladesh. Notable as per WP:GNG since subject has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources such as Daily Star that are independent of the subject.-- ~Mohammad Hossain~ 10:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply
• Note, Mohammad Hossain is the creator of this article. - Owais ^Talk 14:03, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Aranya  (talk) 14:33, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Aranya  (talk) 14:33, 26 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep Musa Vacho77 ( talk) 09:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Passes WP:NPOL as the leader of a major national political party. Typically we extend NPOL to include leaders of national political parties at AFD. 4meter4 ( talk) 20:45, 9 September 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 06:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Journal of Soft Computing in Civil Engineering

Journal of Soft Computing in Civil Engineering (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Article was PRODded before (frankly for an invalid reason), so here we are. The article claims (and this is backed up by MIAR) that the journal is included in Scopus. However, searching "Scopus Preview" for the ISSN or journal title shows that this is incorrect. It also proudly proclaimed to be "supported by Publons" (I deleted that particular gem). Even if true (I didn't check), Publons also "supports" OMICS journals, so this is not directly a glowing recommendation. Other indexing services listed were completely routine (GScholar, DOAJ, etc). In conclusion, this is a non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: delete. Changing my !vote to keep, based on Headbomb's findings below: indexing in Scopus meets NJournals. Randykitty ( talk) 21:46, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty ( talk) 21:46, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Waddles  🗩  🖉 23:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Also @ Randykitty:, the journal has been accepted in Scopus in July 2021 (the title of the journal is Soft Computing in Civil Engineering). It took a bit of digging, but MIAR confirms it (under Journal of Soft Computing in Civil Engineering). If you follow the MIAR Scopus link, you're taken to http://miar.ub.edu/indizadaen/2588-2872/scopus, which has the Scopus Excel list of sources, and you can find it under "Soft Computing in Civil Engineering" / ISSN 25882872 in the second tablet "Accepted titles July 2021". Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 09:14, 3 September 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I did check that Excel file, but looked for "journal etc", not realizing that Scopus would have it under a different title. So what is the correct title, do we need to move the article? I'll change my nom to a "keep" !vote, but as there is a "delete" !vote I cannot withdraw. WaddlesJP13, if you'd like to change your !vote in the might of Headbomb's findings, we can close this AfD. -- Randykitty ( talk) 09:30, 3 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Well the cover has "Soft Computing in Civil Engineering". But the website, ISSN, and inside of the journal (i.e. [110]) have "Journal of Soft Computing in Civil Engineering". And the domain is jsoftcivil.com So my guess is Journal of Soft Computing in Civil Engineering is the actual name of the journal. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 09:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Actually SCOPUS also has Journal of ..., I was too hasty in my comment above. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 09:41, 3 September 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep per Headbomb. 4meter4 ( talk) 20:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Sheila Steele

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

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

Biography of an activist, not reliably sourced as the subject of sufficient reliable source coverage in media to clear our notability criteria for activists. The primary notability claims here are that she maintained a website, and that she was "involved" in unspecified ways in somebody else's legal complaint -- except that the website was the involvement, and the somebody else was her business partner in the website, so that isn't actually a distinct notability claim from the website. But launching a website isn't an "inherent" notability freebie in and of itself, and the sourcing isn't adequate to make her more notable than the norm for launchers of websites: there are just three footnotes here, of which one is the website metaverifying its own existence, one is her obituary in her local hometown newspaper and one is a (deadlinked but waybackable) media hit which briefly mentions Sheila Steele's name in a timeline of her business partner's legal fight, which is not substantively enough about Sheila Steele to claim that she would pass WP:GNG on that basis alone.
And even on a ProQuest search I'm not finding enough improved coverage to turn the tide: I get hits which mention her name in the process of being about the website or unrelated and not-notability-building stuff about her son contracting necrotizing fasciitis, the obituary that's already been cited here, and completely coincidental text matches for different Sheila Steeles, with virtually nothing that's substantively about Sheila Steele as a subject for the purposes of establishing her notability. Bearcat ( talk) 21:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 21:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 21:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saskatchewan-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith ( talk) 21:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. -- Tagishsimon ( talk) 21:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom fails WP:GNG. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 22:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 22:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Parallel cocks

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

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

Sources don't reflect the article's contents. Reads like original research. Citing ( talk) 21:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Citing ( talk) 21:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Citing ( talk) 21:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment I have never seen the term "parallel cocks" used in reference to a motif or a pattern (although it is apparently something you can have in watchmaking), but Confronted animals is a thing. I have seen it called coqs affrontés, for example in https://www.persee.fr/doc/bch_0007-4217_1965_num_89_1_2252, but I'm not sure what the English term would be. Vexations ( talk) 17:13, 3 September 2021 (UTC) reply

• It could fit in as a section in that article, though I have no idea how common this search term would be. I'm not sure if this is a translation issue. The other thing is the sources don't mention cocks or roosters or this motif at all, save for an image or two. Citing ( talk) 17:26, 3 September 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I don't think a redirect would work, because it is a very implausible search term, and it would point to an article that doesn't mention it. Perhaps we can encourage the creator to find better sources, and then add a section on use of the motif in Russian folk art to Confronted animals and delete this article. Vexations ( talk) 17:43, 3 September 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete Simply not notable at all. -- RamotHacker ( talk) 19:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC) reply
  • RamotHacker, We have an essay about arguments to avoid in deletion discussions that you may find helpful. Vexations ( talk) 19:49, 4 September 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment. A couple of birds facing each other is a common motif in Russian and more eastern folklore. Roosters are just one example, maybe not even the most typical. Something like confronted birds could be a better term. Dr.KBAHT ( talk) 15:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC) reply

• Dr.KBAHT Confronted birds occur in many cultures dating back to the ancient world. We already have an article at Confronted animals on this concept more broadly. 4meter4 ( talk) 20:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. In looking at the sources, the nominator is correct that none of the three sources verify the content in the article. The first two sources are how too embroidery guides, that while instructing one on how to stitch confronting birds, provide no actual historical evidence or assertions of their use in Russian culture. The last source also does not verify the content and is about mythological half bird half women and other Russian folk stories. While I don't doubt that confronting birds appears in Russian culture, I know that many other cultures globally have also used this motif and its not unique to Russian culture. I would have suggested a merge to Confronted animals, but without reliable sources there is nothing to merge. Likewise a redirect is not really appropriate because this isn't a typical English language expression of this concept and is an unlikely search term. 4meter4 ( talk) 22:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 21:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Martial Bedi Esmel

Martial Bedi Esmel (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Was kept at the previous AfD due to a now-deprecated older version of WP:NFOOTBALL, which permitted anyone that played in the CAF Champions League, even if it was one game between semi-pro teams, to have an article. The reference is now dead but he apparently made an appearance in a game between Séwé FC and Mighty Barrolle, both of whom play in leagues listed as not fully professional at WP:FPL, therefore he does not actually meet NFOOTBALL, which requires him to play in a game between two clubs playing in an FPL league.

I have investigated whether he played a game for FC Gloria Buzău and concluded that he didn't because his name does not appear at Statistics Football, a reliable website which exhaustively lists all players that played in the top 3 divisions of Romania for the last 70 years. He also doesn't have a Soccerway page. In fact, all I can find is an empty Transfermarkt profile.

Thirdly, I could find absolutely nothing other than the painfully brief and insufficient transfer announcements already cited meaning that Esmel comprehensively fails WP:GNG, which supersedes NFOOTBALL anyway. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom.-- Ortizesp ( talk) 22:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Article about semi-pro footballer which fails WP:GNG. Almost no online English-, French- or Romanian-language coverage, and none of it is SIGCOV. Jogurney ( talk) 13:35, 3 September 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:49, 3 September 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:45, 9 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Restored following DRV discussion. Nominator removed most of the article's content before nominating it for deletion, and has since been blocked as a sockpuppet. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Pitobash Tripathy

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

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

The actor has long career but didn't act in any notable film in a significant role yet. Fails to qualify as a notable actor following Wikipedia:ENTERTAINER. Dixiku ( talk) 20:35, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dixiku ( talk) 20:35, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 20:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete WP:NACTOR requires multiple AND significant roles. There are multiple roles but they don't seem to be significant. Coverage is also not healthy enough to approach WP:BASIC or WP:GNG. Nomadicghumakkad ( talk) 00:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 00:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Nomadicghumakkad. 4meter4 ( talk) 22:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte ( talk) 16:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Sai Teja

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

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

Very hard to find any reference for him. Does not meet notability criteria. The article is live since 2017. Prodded multiple times and was contested every single time. Time for an AFD. Dixiku ( talk) 20:05, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dixiku ( talk) 20:05, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:13, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:13, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete - I agree with nominator. There are almost no references about the subject, and those provided in the article talk only about his expedition to the volcano, without testifying his notability.-- Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 20:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete. The references provided all seem to arise from a single PR campaign in 2017, and there's been nothing since then. Mildly interesting, but not obviously notable. If he gets back into the public eye we can always recreate the article then. RomanSpa ( talk) 10:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete Does not meet GNG. Out of three citations, one is a WP:BLOG and the other two are basically interviews which do not contribute to notability. -- Ab207 ( talk) 14:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete fails WP:GNG two interviews and one blog. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 11:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete could have been speedy. Nomadicghumakkad ( talk) 00:59, 6 September 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte ( talk) 16:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC) reply

DJ Lector

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

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

Non notable musician failing WP:NMUSIC. Sources appear to be self-published and a BEFORE search doesn’t provide anything. Xclusivzik ( talk) 20:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete - an apparent autobiography linked only to more autobiographies... Did a quick search myself and only stumbled upon the usual social media, SoundCloud, Spotify etc. Nothing towards WP:NMUSICIAN or WP:GNG Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete: As per nom, this is a non-notable 18-y-o dj and producer. This is WP:TOOSOON and the references given do not give any hint of notability. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 20:23, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete - as per above. Notability has not been met yet.-- Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 20:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 10:15, 4 September 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails WP:GNG Not notable enough to justify a Wikipedia article and there is not significant coverage. RamotHacker ( talk) 21:33, 4 September 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete No evidence of notability. GhostDestroyer100 ( talk) 20:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete.. WP:GNG is not met yet. Yaxı Hökmdarz ( talk) 05:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete and salt. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 16:51, 10 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Shama Hyder

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

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

May be she's notable. But it was deleted first on 5 April 2018 as advert. On 2nd june 2018, it was deleted via AFD. The present article was then created by Cabomba 789 on 29th July 2018 under title Shama Hyder Kabani to bypass scrutiny and was successful. Perhaps another deletion discussion would be the right decision. Dixiku ( talk) 19:57, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dixiku ( talk) 19:57, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete and Salt: Nothing notable here. Just a businesswoman at SxSW who is making her own way. Nonetheless, no reliable sources. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 20:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Strangely the old afd template is malfunctioning on the talk page of this article. Dixiku ( talk) 20:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep The Forbes 30 under 30 feature is very strong coverage and show of notability for this subject. More citations should be added to demonstrate more notability. Multi7001 ( talk) 18:29, 3 September 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete - likely undisclosed paid-for spam. I've blocked the author for this. They've also created a suspected Wiki-PR article Cesare Catania (see m:Talk:Wikiproject:Antispam#Wiki_PR,_Status_Labs and d:Q56141864). MER-C 19:18, 3 September 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom and MER-C. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 11:30, 5 September 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete and Salt. Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NBUSINESSPERSON. With article re-creation a recurring problem, WP:SALT is strongly recommended. 4meter4 ( talk) 23:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn because the article has been improved. ( non-admin closure) Sahaib3005 ( talk) 06:31, 10 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Lego The Powerpuff Girls (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

I tried PRODing the article but it was removed. In my proposed deletion of the article I wrote "Only sources are Lego blogs. Is a non notable Lego theme (only a couple of sets). It should be deleted or merged to another page." Adding to my previous points: There has only been two Lego Powerpuff Girls sets: 41287 Bubbles' Playground Showdown and 41288 Mojo Jojo Strikes ( Source). The Lego Dimensions sets do not count towards the theme (71343 The Powerpuff Girls Buttercup Fun Pack and 71346 The Powerpuff Girls Team Pack) because they are not part of the theme. Sahaib3005 ( talk) 19:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC) Brick Fanatics, BrickEconomy, thebrickfan.com, Brickset, Brickfanz, ToyNews, etc are all blog sites and should be removed. www.lego.com and warnerbros are primary sources. The only good source I can see is the Variety source [111] but it does not even mention Powerpuff girls. Sahaib3005 ( talk) 19:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC) I’m surprised this article has not been deleted sooner, probably because it has been WP:REFBOMBED. Sahaib3005 ( talk) 20:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep - There is no reason to delete this page because it had to be rewrite or clean up and takes a lot of work to find more sources. It has also received media coverage in terms of its character, sets and video game to warrant a standalone article. Lego Dimensions can be related to the theme for example Lego Jurassic World (theme) and Lego Ninjago. This page can not be merged see Talk:The Powerpuff Girls (2016 TV series) because it's already closed. I will continue search more sources and update this page. Striker2020 ( talk) 05:24, 3 September 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep - There are two or three decent references to justify notability, such as the Forbes reference (19). Fieryninja ( talk) 10:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Fieryninja. While the article has a lot of bad references, there are enough quality ones to pass GNG. The solution is to trim and remove poorly sourced content and inappropriate references, not deletion. 4meter4 ( talk) 23:10, 9 September 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC) reply

John Craig (musician)

John Craig (musician) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Does not appear to satisfy WP:NMUSICIAN. Been in CAT:NN for almost 12 years, so let's resolve this. – DarkGlow • 19:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete, John Craig is a non notable musician, not enough reliable sources. Sahaib ( talk) 19:57, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

• Weak delete There are many local/regional musicians and acts that can pass WP:NMUSICIAN, but Craig is not one of them. Very few reliable sources to indicate notability. KidAd • SPEAK 20:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete - There are plenty of sources for John Craig, but not for this one. Notability is not met.-- Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 20:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete fails WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:GNG. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 11:48, 5 September 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete, non notable musician failing WP:NMUSICIAN. - Xclusivzik ( talk) 21:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Hold Your Horse Is (band)

Hold Your Horse Is (band) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

"It also coincided with a double page spreads in national publications Front and Guitar and Bass Magazine as well as a UK tour with Northern Irish band Mojo Fury" sounds like a great case for NMUSIC/GNG, except it's unsourced and unsourceable. PROD declined for a reason that isn't clear @ Violarulez and NemesisAT:, and a BEFORE indicates no evidence that this was a notable band. AfD isn't cleanup, but text like "2010 saw them sign to Big Scary Monsters Recording Company, which concluded with the release of the six-track EP Rammin' It Home in August" has me fairly sure this was a copyvio from a prior version of their website or some other source since offline. Star Mississippi 19:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 19:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 19:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete: as per nom, non-notable and Wikipedia isn't cleanup. Article is non-encyclopaedic in nature with excerpts lifted from one or another site. References are basically mentions or lists, or other bands members have played in. Does not pass WP:BAND. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 20:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete: not notable + promotional tone. I was going to re-nominate but wasn't sure if that would be edit warring, so thank you. Violarulez ( talk) 21:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply
  • You'd have been fine to take it to AfD, Violarulez, you just can't re-add a PROD no matter why it was declined. Star Mississippi 01:13, 3 September 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom fails WP:NBAND. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 11:52, 5 September 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Cabos

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

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

Does not satisfy WP:NPRODUCT. Been in CAT:NN for almost 12 years, so let's resolve this. – DarkGlow • 19:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete - as per nominator, besides offical website there is almost nothing. Certainly does not meet notability criteria for WP:NPRODUCT.-- Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 20:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NPRODUCT. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 11:53, 5 September 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. 4meter4 ( talk) 23:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep (withdrawn). (non-admin closure) – DarkGlow • 22:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Josef Berger (scientist)

Josef Berger (scientist) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Does not appear to satisfy WP:NACADEMIC/ WP:NAUTHOR. Been in CAT:NN for almost 12 years, so let's resolve this. – DarkGlow • 19:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Google scholar shows five publications with over 100 citations each, making a weak case for WP:PROF#C1, and as editor-in-chief of a bluelinked journal he has a stronger case for #C8. The superficial nomination statement (not even addressing the editorship although it is one of the explicit criteria in WP:PROF, and yet claiming to have evaluated the subject as not passing WP:PROF) creates the appearance that the nominator is just blindly nominating articles with old notability tags rather than making an effort to resolve them more directly. — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:58, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I used Google as my basis for the nomination; forgive me for not knowing Google Scholar is the more appropriate search tool for deeming notability for academics. I don't "blindly" nominate for AfD. – DarkGlow • 20:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Notability is clear. The nominator ought to withdraw this AfD and reconsider their other prods and AfDs. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 21:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Prince Odeneho Oppong

Prince Odeneho Oppong (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

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

Article is still WP:TOOSOON has not held elected political office yet. GNG has not been established since last AfD discussion closed in March 2021 in my opinion JW 1961 ^Talk 19:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. JW 1961 ^Talk 19:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. JW 1961 ^Talk 19:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. JW 1961 ^Talk 20:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete: as per nom - non-elected politician. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 21:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete – nothing's changed since my last nomination, with the exception of this trivial mention. Still fails the GNG and WP:NPOL; the article's creator is encouraged to use the AfC process if he thinks that something's changed. -- Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 00:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete - If not much of the content has changed since the last AFD, this might actually qualify as a WP:G4. Edge3 ( talk) 04:22, 6 September 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete current sourcing (both in article and elsewhere) does not satisfy the GNG. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 09:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Al Ekhwa