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

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Ajpolino ( talk) 23:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Skid mount

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

A dictionary definition, unsourced for a decade. This is certainly a real thing, but it doesn't seem particularly notable. Beeblebrox ( talk) 00:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply

I think we should keep it or least merge its content into Pallet as it is part of that whole transportaion system Back ache ( talk) 09:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, passes WP:GNG based on significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

References

  1. ^ Kang, S.; Kim, H.; Kim, J.; Kim, H.; Jang, J.; Kwak, B.; Choi, K.; Jang, H. (2021). "Transient Structural Analysis of a Skid Mounted on a Hydrogen Tube Trailer under Shock and Vibration Induced by Road Irregularities" (pdf). Applied Sciences. 11 (9): 3779.
  2. ^ Polivka, K.A.; Faller, R.K.; Rohde, J.R.; Holloway, J.C; Sicking, D.L. (1999). Compliance Testing of Iowa’s Skid-Mounted Sign Device (Report). Mid-America Transportation Center.
  3. ^ World Batch Forum (2011). Walt Boyes (ed.). ISA 88 and ISA 95 in the Life Science Industries. Momentum Press. pp. 50–51. ISBN  9781606502037.
  4. ^ Heinz P. Bloch; Fred K. Geitner (2004). Machinery Component Maintenance and Repair. Elsevier Science. pp. 75–76.
  5. ^ E. Goldberg (2012). Handbook of Downstream Processing. Springer Netherlands. p. 682. ISBN  9789400915633.

SailingInABathTub ( talk) 15:49, 8 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Getting google books results for anytime the words "skid mount" are used in any context does not demonstrate WP:SIGCOV. These are mostly brief mentions of the fact that a skid mount was used, except for the first one, which appears to be about something else entirely, and the second one, which is a paper about a specific skid-mounted device, fine for verifiability, but not notability. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC) reply
#1 is a paper on the structural analysis of a skid mount, used to transport hydrogen tubes, #2 is a technical report on the safety of a skid mounted road sign - an application not currently in the article. #3, #4, & #6 each have several paragraphs describing the general principle of a skid mount which could be used as references for the first paragraph of this article. SailingInABathTub ( talk) 03:26, 11 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 02:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • "Weak keep': This is not my area of expertise and a lot of what I found on Google Books, etc., was either paywalled or about the skid and not the mount, but the sources cited above seem to at least provide coverage beyond a dictionary definition. Gnomingstuff ( talk) 22:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep, Notable commonly used concept - passes WP:GNG, I did a quick search on Google Scholar and three hundred or so articles discuss it (and its more an industry concept rather than scientific/arts/legal, so that isn't the best place to look), but from the context, its a common enough concept. Searching Proquest journals, gives 299 hits on the phrase, with a lot of mentions of the concept being used in industry/ trade journals. Deathlibrarian ( talk) 03:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, It is a way of storing and per above meets WP:GNG, Alex-h ( talk) 17:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Deathlibrarian and SailingInABathTub. Heartmusic678 ( talk) 11:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Sunrise English Private School

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

No RS coverage ( https://www.google.com/search?q=sunrise+english+private+school&oq=sunrise+english+private+school&aqs=edge..69i57.6416j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 ) shows only the school's website and social media profile (and one website that lists different schools). And ( https://www.google.com/search?q=sunrise+english+private+school&source=lmns&tbm=nws&hl=en-US&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiv2ZmB9pn1AhWXj9gFHfXLCxwQ_AUoAnoECAEQAg ) searching for news articles only shows passing mentions and minor coverage. Tube· of· Light 05:57, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

....which is not a DELREASON, since they describe the school. FOARP ( talk) 11:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete due to the lack of in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. The only thing that might work for notability is the article provided by FOARP about uniform fees, but even there most of the article is quotes from parents The Abu Dhabi Education Council. There's zero analysis of the subject by the author of the article though. Which mans it can't be used for notability. In the meantime, Wikipedia isn't a news outlet. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 01:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Uniform fees and bullying at a school are run-of-the-mill WP:MILL and don't make the school notable. BBQboffin ( talk) 04:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, Article does not pass notability. Alex-h ( talk) 17:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. This discussion has had lower participation than is ideal, but after a full month, I think it's time to close this. Consider this a mildly "weak keep", but let's move forward. Ajpolino ( talk) 04:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Campus Front of India

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

Fails WP:GROUP there seems to be no reliable indepth coverage of the organization itself. ChunnuBhai ( talk) 10:38, 29 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep But this should be noted that this is the student wing of Radical [1] Islamist [2], Popular Front Of India. They are educated but violent Assault on T. J. Joseph, and the PFI article was permanently protected due to vandalism and COI editing by PFI activists. I can guarantee that Campus Front of India members will regularly visit their organization page and try to remove negative sourced content. Their SDPI page has fewer visitors. See Death of Abhimanyu. Knight Skywalker ( talk) 04:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Even currently the first line is written by using websites that have a bias in favor of them. Knight Skywalker ( talk) 13:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep The article has multiple links to Hindustan Times, Times of India, Deccan Herald and other RS that provide substantial coverage. Passes GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • The page creator is COI editor. Currently inactive. Tenpointer1 uploaded an image of boys claiming to be CFI members. The article's contents made with primary sources, unreliable websites should be removed. Knight Skywalker ( talk) 05:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Meddle. ✗ plicit 11:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Meddle Tour

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

Not a notable tour. I can find sources for all the shows, but the article does not satisfy WP:NOTESAL. This is just one of many US tours Pink Floyd did during this stage of their career. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:01, 4 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 13:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Ajpolino ( talk) 23:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Carlos St. James

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

Subject does not meet requirements of notability IvanMilsbein ( talk) 15:41, 14 January 2022 (UTC) Page appears to be self-promotion and resume content. Refer to criteria for determining whether person is notable here: [ [1]] IvanMilsbein ( talk) 16:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Likely a promotional article. None of the reliable sourcing appears to be significant coverage that is actually about the subject. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 16:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Oaktree b ( talk) 20:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom fails WP:GNG. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 21:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:09, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply

High House Gardens, Congham

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

Firstly , Notability. The only source of any solidity is Pevsner; one line on the house, nothing on the garden. Secondly, this is a lump of the kind of promotional flannel that the owners of 'hospitality venues' create so that gullible would-be clients are bamboozled by the fact that there is a Wikipedia article. TheLongTone ( talk) 17:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC) reply

And thirdly the article has nothing about the garden in it; it consisted of a lot of guff (to use the technical term) about the rich people who lived there. I've removed it, of course TheLongTone ( talk) 17:52, 4 January 2022 (UTC) reply
And fourthly the editor is (I assume) being paid to create this dreck. I've AfD'd (sucessfully) od of their cratios, & will be looving at the rest. TheLongTone ( talk) 18:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    Comment, I think we should assume good faith towards Maypm, who created this article. If you look at their editing pattern, yes, they have created articles about two historical properties in Norfolk that have become wedding venues, but they have also created or worked on a variety of other articles, mostly about historical buildings. It is extremely common for such buildings to be used as wedding venues. Practically every house in Norfolk more than 100 years old and equipped with a garden big enough for a marquee is available to hire for your wedding if you want! If Maypm just happens to live in Norfolk and like writing about his/her local historical houses, they're doomed to writing about wedding venues, without this meaning that they are being WP:PAID. TheLongTone, if you think Maypm is being paid, the place to deal with it is probably an administrators' noticeboard, not AfD, but I don't think it'll hold much traction. Some of their other articles, for example Reymerston Hall, Norfolk are quite well balanced and historically informative. In general, the current commercial use of a property shouldn't count against its notability. Having said all that (and sorry about the rant!) there appears to be nothing useful to say about High House Gardens, Congham, so delete is reasonable. Elemimele ( talk) 19:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC) reply
I do assume good faith, but having looked at a couple of the editors other contribution I remain very doubtful. I cannot imagine why anybody should create an article ostensibly about a garden which in fact consists entirely of eyewateringly dull biographical details of the now demolished house's owners. TheLongTone ( talk) 13:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply
and I (sort of) apologise for removing all the references bar one; not intentional, but the baby went with the bathwater. TheLongTone ( talk) 13:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Mmm, been doing some thinking. Looking at the original article, before you trimmed it, TheLongTone, you are quite correct that it was about the house, not so much the garden. My personal guess is that the article's creator was either driving past, or attended a function at the garden, and is the sort of person who finds local history fascinating, so they got to work. There are two ways to handle this; one would be to restore the information about the house and its history, and rename (move) the article to Congham High House. But to do this, we'd have to be certain that the house and its history are notable, and that the article isn't original research. My feeling is that the house would be only borderline, and that the article was supported more by primary sources than secondary, so it does stray into the territory of writing that should be published as local history, not as encyclopaedia content. So I do still think (sadly) that delete might be the better option. I am sorry I got so grumpy yesterday! Elemimele ( talk) 17:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 13:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

As a dedicated curmudgeon I noticed no grumpiness. My doubts about the author of these articles remains. Most of the content is dull beyond belief. TheLongTone ( talk) 14:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete no evidence of significant coverage of the garden in reliable, independent sources. No opinion on whether the house may be notable. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:00, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete My search only generated brief mentions in publications such as the Journal of the Royal Horticultural Society of London and Gardener's Chronicle. I would have voted to merge to Congham, but it is already mentioned on the page. Heartmusic678 ( talk) 11:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The keep side's arguments remain superficial, while the delete side addresses the number and quality of sources. Sandstein 16:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Gabriel Hall

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

Individual is only arguably notable for the murder. My best understanding is that Wikipedia does not document every murder, and it does not seem as though this murder was notable outside of the short-term news cycle. Whadup, it's ya girl, Dusa ( talk) 05:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC) reply

@ WhisperToMe:
  • Keep - The reason why I decided this was a notable incident was because of Wikipedia:Notability_(events)#Geographical_scope which states: "Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group." This was because of media interest in the case from the Philippines, Hall's home country. WhisperToMe ( talk) 02:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: regarding Whisper's quote, Gabriel Hall does not seem to have had significant impact in the Philippines. I'd say no impact whatsoever, given that he resided, was charged and convicted in another country. Is there even any WP:IMPACT in the US? Geschichte ( talk) 14:41, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply
      • @ Geschichte: I'm unsure myself; I saw Whisper say this much, but I never saw any clarification. As far as impact in the US, I don't recall seeing anything that may indicate relevance in the US. - Whadup, it's ya girl, Dusa ( talk) 18:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 15:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep, for the reasons of editor who want to keep this article. Person is quite infamous as well. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 01:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The article is notable and had some media coverage throughout the years and the case is pretty notable so I say keep. Article has reliable sources and has correct info. HelpingWorld ( talk) 20:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Administrator Comment I have relisted this, because while we are at a numerical keep, the article is notable article has reliable sources person is quite infamous are not in alignment with the notability guidelines and suggest futher !votes take policy into account. Star Mississippi 23:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I was just passing through (to fix a delsort above) but after reading the article, this is a WP:BLP1E with only local sources... I'm not seeing how the WP:PERP or crime is "unusual" or what Phillipines-based coverage it has. The GMA articles are sourced from the Filipino Reporter (a now-usurped spam domain) leaving only the Freeman article as evidence of wider notability. Am I missing something? czar 00:17, 23 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete On the one hand, it seems incredible to me that a murder and death-penalty case that involves such a hot-button issue as international adoption should not be notable. On the other hand, the article's sources show only two or maybe three sources that meet the usual notability requirements. The arguments for "keep" above do not, unfortunately, contradict this evaluation. The gripping hand therefore points to the lack of WP:SUSTAINED coverage as demonstrated by searches decisively favoring a lack of notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Was his brother on the Bachlorette? There's write up in the Hollywood Reporter about someone with his name. Oaktree b ( talk) 20:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Comment I remember he had a sister (cited in the article), but I don't know if he had a brother. WhisperToMe ( talk) 18:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I think another reason why I created the article is that around the execution typically press coverage increases, including in European countries, as lately death row inmates have become a cause celebre in countries without the death penalty. WhisperToMe ( talk) 18:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    But Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and until those sources exist, we have little to show for this event's lasting significance czar 18:47, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Amber Lily

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

Advertorialized WP:BLP of an singer, not properly referenced as passing our inclusion criteria for singers. The notability claims here are that she was a non-winning competitor in a singing competition and otherwise just that her work exists, rather than any concrete evidence that she achived anything that would pass WP:NMUSIC -- and while the article also claims that she's an actress, it offers no indication whatsoever that she's ever done anything of note as an actress at all. And for sourcing, two of the six footnotes are to her own self-published website about herself and three more are of the "music metaverifying its own existence on Amazon.com" variety, which are not reliable or notability-building sources. And while there is one footnote to a real piece of media coverage here, it's a very short blurb nowhere near substantive enough to carry her over WP:GNG all by itself if it's the only acceptable source in the mix.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced considerably better than this. Bearcat ( talk) 22:30, 14 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect to National Library of Finland. History will be left to facilitate a merge if desired, as some editors expressed interest in this. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply

KANTO – National Agent Data

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

No evidence of notability found for this. Can perhaps be redirected to National Library of Finland if people think that is useful? Otherwise deletion seems best. Fram ( talk) 17:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply

The KANTO – National Agent Data page was requested so I do not understand why you would immediately need to delete it. Deletion does not seem appropriate for the moment. This page is important giving additional background information to the Wikidata item KANTO (Q104089764) and the wikidata property KANTO ID (P8980). On the page tHere are links to external pages providing addtional information which was not copied to Wikipedia. If additional content is required it is possible to do. Please, end the deletion process and approve the page. Saarik ( talk) 17:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Requested by whom? AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 19:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply
it was an anonymous request Saarik ( talk) 09:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC) reply

There is a true need for the Finnish KANTO page, since it is an authority ID that is widely used on pages of Finnish publishers (see, for instance Erik_Allardt in Finnish (Suomi)). It would seem appropriate to have a similar item in English especially because there are people in Finland whose Finnish is not as good as their English. ( Reetakuu)

  • Redirect Based on a rather brief an informal search for sources (the name makes this difficult to search for, as it has more common meanings in both English and Finnish), I don't think this is going to pass WP:GNG. I'd suggest merging this into National Library of Finland for now. Note how many other authority files e.g. in Authority control#Examples also simply link to libraries. Later, if sufficient independent coverage materializes, a dedicated article might then be split off. I'd be happy to change my !vote to keep, though, if someone can point out independent coverage. - Ljleppan ( talk) 08:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The Kanto page is very similar in status and content as the corresponding database page of the German National library Integrated Authority File which was used as an example in creation of the Kanto page. If that page is ok, then the Kanto page should be, too. That page has existed since 2012 and is not much longer, either.
If similarities of the name is an issue, the title could be finaf which is the official code name for KANTO registered by LOC similar to "gnd" for the Gemeinsame Normdatei. If deletion is still supported, this content should be included in the National library page, and then a redirect added Saarik ( talk) 09:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC) reply
" Other stuff exists" does not hold much weight in AfD discussions: there's plenty of content in Wikipedia and some is bound to be less than stellar. For GND in specific, I completely agree that the en-wiki page is far from great. The de-wiki page de:Gemeinsame Normdatei has a lot more references, even if it too seems to be lacking in the independent-coverage department. - Ljleppan ( talk) 09:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC) reply
wow, this is really amazing. How can you even require to have many references to a new page which is just created??? The gemeimsame Normdate page has existed almost 10 years so of course it has references. Saarik ( talk) 07:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC) reply
you seem to misunderstand. A page should not even be created unless there are 3rd party references to the subject of the page. We're not alking about references to the page itself, but the subject. When it doesn't, the material is best included in an existing article,and there's a good one for the purpose. DGG ( talk ) 00:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: pinging DGG, since you're an librarian by profession and you know the true value of an authority file. Your assessment/opinion/vote will have a weightage over here. - Hatchens ( talk) 16:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

The other possibility, which could be pursued atmthe sametime, is to turn the list of national authority lists into a combination article. There will be the same problem in trying to make articles on most of them.

DGG ( talk ) 07:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Comment I did a slightly more comprehensive search of Finnish language academic resources than in my original comment above, and there are a few Finnish language publications that have passing mentions of KANTO, e.g. [3] [4]. But these are indeed very passing. The first one states that they used KANTO data in constructing another thing, and the second has a passing mention that translates along the lines of "Work on ontologies has continued in the National Library of Finland. For example, Finto's new KANTO ontology covers the authoritative names of the agents relating to materiel published in Finland, produced during the description of the national bibliography, including the authors of musical materiel" (the original Finnish sentence is either extremely confusing or has some mistake in it, I can't quite tell). A general list of national authority files sounds reasonable, so I'd also be happy with that as an alternative. - Ljleppan ( talk) 10:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to National Library of Finland; it's an aspect of their work, and independent notability is not at all apparent. Sandstein 06:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ https://theprint.in/india/popular-front-of-india-radical-outfit-with-simi-links-now-under-caa-protests-scanner/340196/
  2. ^ https://www.deccanherald.com/national/atmakur-violence-sdpi-pfi-activities-under-probe-in-andhra-pradesh-1070568.html
  3. ^ Hyvönen, Eero, et al. "Parlamenttisampo: eduskunnan aineistojen linkitetyn avoimen datan palvelu ja sen käyttömahdollisuudet." Informaatiotutkimus 40.3 (2021): 216-244.
  4. ^ Hyvönen, Eero. "Sammon taontaa semanttisessa webissä (Forging Sampos on the Semantic Web)." Tekniikan Waiheita (2021).
  • Merge to National Library of Finland, per nominator's rarionale and DGG. Not enough GNG coverage for a standalone article, per Ljleppan, but worth keeping given the state of the National Library of Finland page. Pilaz ( talk) 04:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Dronacharya Group of Institutions, Greater Noida

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

Contested WP:PROD. No clear significance, minimal sourcing. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 23:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Robert Mellors

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

The only reference in this article is to the award of an OBE to this person. I have added a publication but cannot find any additional reliable coverage to include. Tacyarg ( talk) 22:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Magna Carta Cartel

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

They are a real band quite alright but a before search shows they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them thus GNG isn’t met. Furthermore WP:NBAND isn’t met also. Following the before search all I can see are vendor, self published & user generated sources. Celestina007 ( talk) 21:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Cheetah News

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

Fails WP:GNG due to inadequate secondary sources. Also conflicts with WP:NOTGUIDE Headphase ( talk) 21:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

RAM Europe

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

Speedy was declined and I somewhat expect the PROD to be challenged, so saving this step. Sole source is a PDF authored by someone with the last name that matches the article creator's. While I don't think this is necessarily UPE, other of the article creator's works have been found not to be notable and I don't find any indication that this subject is. No evidence found via BEFORE to establish notability, and no Greek article found to draw from. Star Mississippi 20:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Andy Le

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

Early stage character bit-part actor. References are mostly promotional PR, profiles and interviews that are primary. scope_creep Talk 18:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - It is WP:TOOSOON for this emerging martial arts actor who is at the beginning stages of his career. Perhaps in the future, after he achieves notability in the way of significant coverage in reliable sources, wins some awards, etc. he will be ready for an article. When I saw the L.A. Times citation I was hopeful, but it consisted of a very brief mention and name check in photo captions which is not enough to pass WP criteria for WP:NACTOR. The other citations consist of a couple interviews, which as mentioned in the nom, are primary sources that don't contribute to notability; simple mentions that he is in the cast; or don't mention him at all, therefore, he also does not pass WP:GNG. Perhaps this can be revisited in a few more years after he is more established as an actor. Netherzone ( talk) 17:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone ( talk) 17:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is clearly an overly promotional article. This guy is not a "star" in Chang-shi, he is a basically forgettable bit part actor. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete It could be a case of WP:TOOSOON but it doesn't look like he's had any significant roles. BuySomeApples ( talk) 03:50, 27 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete My search didn't find anything to show he's notable as a martial artist or actor. I also don't see evidence that WP:GNG is met. Claims of starring in all those movies is clear exaggeration when you look at descriptions of the movies and their casts. Papaursa ( talk) 04:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to ICC Awards#Monthly awards. Redirects are cheap, otherwise this would be a delete. Tone 20:03, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

ICC Player of the Month

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

No evidence that this award is meaningful or at all notable enough to pass WP:GNG- every source in the article is a primary source (as the ICC is the one handing out the awards) Joseph 2302 ( talk) 18:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect to Optica (society)#Primary journals. Tone 20:03, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Optics Continuum

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

Article PRODed with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODed by creator with reason "Optics Continuum is a revamped version of OSA's OSA Continuum journal. This allows to broaden the research span of the journal along with serving multiple disciplines of the research. Since it was just launched in Jan 2022, it might be few months to be included in Scopus and Clarivate databases. I will keep a close watch on the database and journal's notability. However, I think we should give it due time before decision of deletion. Thank you! :-)" However, beside the fact that Scopus and Clarivate will treat this as a journal that only just started (so that indexing is likely quite q while away), this journal is included in not a single database (selective or not) and (not very surprising) there are no in-depth sources that meet the requirements of GNG. PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty ( talk) 18:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Lucas Oswald

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

Cannot find any RS or SIGCOV that cover Oswald or his career, only self-published promotional material. Does not appear to WP:NSINGER as all of his success seems to have been garnered as part of bands. – DarkGlow • 18:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Paris Visone

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

References are primary interviews. Fails WP:BLPPRIMARY, WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep Talk 18:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. The reason I have not redirected it, despite generally doing so, is it's not mentioned at the target and is therefore of no help to the reader. No objection to a redirect being created should English-language content be added. Star Mississippi 01:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Plyverse

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

Non-notable. Mess. scope_creep Talk 17:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - Almost incomprehensible. The article seems, on machine-translating the references, to be about a fictional universe, but does not consistently describe it as fiction, and is poorly organized.
  • An article should speak for itself as to why its subject matter is notable without the need for a reader to read the references. After all, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to contain information, not merely to be links to verifying information. This article does not speak for itself, because it is almost incomprehensible, but a review of the references shows that they mostly appear to be advertising the fiction and the fictional universe.
Number Reference Remarks Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 SportsSeoul Mention of a contest for art for the subject fictional universe. No Yes No
2 Osen.mt.co.kr Discussion of a publicity poster No No No
3 Joynews24.com Interview with a promoter No Yes No
4 zdnet.co.kr Interview about the subject No Yes No
5 Donga.com A teaser about the subject No Yes No
6 Playliststudio.kr A map of the fictional place - Their own web site No Yes Only in-universe No
7 Playliststudio.kr More information about the fictional place - Their own web site No Yes Only in-universe No
8 Osen.mt.co.kr More information about the fictional place No Yes No
9 YouTube No No
10 Playliststudio.kr More information about the fictional place - Their own web site No Only in-universe No
11 Donga.com Information about marketing the fictional place and shows about it Yes Yes No
12 Playliststudio.kr Advertising on own web site for REVAN company, which may be in the fictional universe No No No
13 Playliststudio.kr Advertising on own web site for Re.Feel company, which may be in the fictional universe No No No
14 Joynews24.com Another promotional interview No No
  • An article that can only be understood by machine-translating the references, and then does not establish general notability, can be deleted safely. There probably is an article about Playlist, the Korean production company, that can be written in an objective encyclopedic fashion; but this is not it.

Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • with regards to ref 9, it is an episode, supporting the fact that the actress appeared in one of the television series that the fictional universe is set in (the video is loaded with the timestamp of one of her appearances). – robertsky ( talk) 22:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. ✗ plicit 01:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Sdala B

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

Unable to find sources indicating a pass of WP:GNG, WP:NBIO or WP:NCREATIVE WP:MUSICBIO, likely not notable. ASUKITE 16:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Note I've nominated the article for CSD G5 as the creator was blocked. (See here.) If an admin agrees and deletes it, this can be procedurally closed. ASUKITE 20:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deletion. — Cryptic 02:31, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Mizanur Rahman (cricket umpire)

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

Fails WP:NCRIC. Ts12rAc talk to me 16:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Michig ( talk) 18:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

The Bombay Tribune

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

Hoax? I first draftified this to give the editor a chance to make clear what it is about, but they put it back with minimal improvements, and I still can't find out what they really try to describe here. There is very little evidence for any Bombay Tribune, never mind one that is "market leaders in terms of circulation", even though it is only a supplement: "Bombay Tribune[1] is a free supplement of The Bombay Tribune". Fram ( talk) 15:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 15:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 15:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete While there are claims for notability, none of the citations provided support the claims made. This is a borderline hoax as Fram describes. Chris Troutman ( talk) 18:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The editor added certain 'warnings' to the page (i.e. citations/references) that date back to September of 2010, while the article was created yesterday. The website is locked and I am unable to access this. Can anyone else confirm that it is blocked for them? Fakescientist8000 ( talk) 18:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and salt. This website was created a month ago (see archive.org and their Twitter posts). The first version of this article was speedily deleted in December, the week the website appears to have been created. Politanvm talk 18:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Subject doesn't meet the notability. -- E.Im anoff Snatch 20:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC) — E.Imanoff ( talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Elshadiman ( talk · contribs). reply
  • Delete: Hoax. Reminded me of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Delhi Times (newspaper), another hoax of a similar type that is now at AfD. Java Hurricane 10:53, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Fails GNG. The site's footer section still has a lot of "Sample page" from website's template. - SUN EYE 1 16:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: as per nom. and all above. - Hatchens ( talk) 15:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • delete the name "bombay tribune" feels oddly familiar. I think there was a newspaper by that name in historical days, but I also think it was closed in the historical days. This seems to be just another product/organisation trying to piggyback the original brand name. This happens a lot in India. But we should document this somewhere in case of someone else recreates the article. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 04:39, 27 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 20:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Rizi Timane

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

Refs are either primary, SPS, shops or non-RS. Fails WP:BIO, WP:ANYBIO. scope_creep Talk 15:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was merge to Plandome Manor, New York#Parks and recreation. Star Mississippi 01:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Plandome Country Club

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

Fails NCORP. Generic brochure article. scope_creep Talk 14:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Anil Kishore Yadav

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

Fails WP:BIO. Non-notable police officer. scope_creep Talk 14:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

2022 Supercoppa Italiana (women)

2022 Supercoppa Italiana (women) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

We don't know the participating teams yet nor the dates of the matches. The article is also unsourced Dr Salvus 14:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect to Clifton, Michigan. The content is under the re-direct if someone wishes to merge sourced information to the target. Star Mississippi 01:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Cliff, Michigan

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

Non-notable place. Fails WP:GEO and WP:V. What is a "viable place"? Nothing found when searching for more sources. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • It appears that this source [4] is about the mine that gave the place its name. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Rename to Cliff Mine (Michigan). The source I linked to above states "is the first successful mine in the Michigan Copper District and dates from 1845." The mine appears to be notable, but the place is just whatever residents grew up just around the mine. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • This source [5] suggests the mine is in Phoenix, Michigan. That apparently is an unincorporated place in the county. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    • I will need to see if I can find more sources. The two places may have been the same, and people may have used different names for the same mine. It is also less than clear that Phoenix, Michigan is still a place. It may be miscategorized as such, and maybe should be recategorized to the former populated places category. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • This is a YouTube video from the County convention and visitor beaureau on the place. Not by any stetch a reliable source, let alone indepdent, but it shows we are dealing with something. [6]. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Phoenix, Michigan for the time being. We need better sourcing to sort this out. I know people have written books about Michigan's copper country. I have no idea if they would add better sourcing on this place. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Clifton, Michigan. My searching in google books suggests that this is the actual place where the mine was at, and we have a better sourced article on that place. Phoenix, Michigan may in turn be another name for the place. Someone would probably want to look at the sourcing more to figure this out. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    • google books here [7] suggests there are two books that mention the mine in the title. There are other books on Michigan copper country that might say something about this place, especially if this was in fact the first successful mine. Even though I live in Michigan, I have never even been to the UP, let alone Copper Country, so I do not have a good sense of the spacial issues involved in the place. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • I found this book published by Wayne State University Press in 1991. In the intriduction (thus the part written by a modern scholar, and thus a secondary not a primary source) it explicitly states that Clifton was also know as "Cliff". [8]. So we have sourcing that This is an alternate name for Cliff. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Clifton, Michigan as an alternate, informal name. I don't really see any meaningful content worthy to be merged. Clifton, Michigan needs serious improvements and footnotes, btw. Cavarrone 10:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Clifton, Michigan. The book Michigan Place Names (Romig 1986) has two separate listings for Cliff and Clifton. For Cliff, it states, "Keweenaw County; the village grew up around the Cliff Mine founded by the Pittsburg & Boston Company in 1844; named by John Hayes, a Pittsburg pharmacist turned prospector, from its location below a high bluff; one of the most profitable of copper mines, it was sold to the Cliff Mining Company in 1871, who in turn sold it to the Tamarack Mining Company in 1880; now the mine a ruin and its village a ghost town." For Clifton, it states, "Keweenaw County; the Clifton Mine (copper) was opened in 1852; the North American Mine post office was transferred to and renamed Clifton on Feb. 24, 1853... the Clifton Mine was closed in 1855 but the Clifton post office operated until Dec. 3, 1884." My only other source on the matter Michigan Ghost Towns (Dodge 1973) lists both communities, but for Cliff, it merely reads, "Cliff—See Clifton" and right below that has several paragraphs for Clifton. It sounds like they might have been separate but very similar communities. However, Cliff doesn't appear to have any useful information available, while Clifton has more information for its own article. — Notorious4life ( talk) 04:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Closed early per WP:SKCRIT #2b. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Conners Creek, Michigan

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

Non-notable place failing WP:GEO. The only source is a discussion forum! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. You mean WP:NGEO? Keeping or deleting isn't decided on what's in the article, but on what's available. It was a recognized township, dsecribed as such in gazetteers [9]. It should be moved to Conner's Creek though, as that is the more common form of the name. Anyway, it (and the convoluted history of its name) has a long entry here, making it clear that it had at one time more than two thousand inhabitants. Fram ( talk) 13:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The nomination is incorrect. The one thing listed under sources is not a discussion forum. It is a book that has entries on basically every place in Michigan, with an emphasis on the origin of the name, but it does tell a little about their history. I may have over relided on it as a reliable source that could establish notability, but it is a published book, not a discussion forum. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The additional source found by Fram clearly shows notability. I added information based on that source throughout the article with clear references. It is also interesting to me that the nominator failed to notify me of the deletion disucssion even though I was the article creator. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep: For someone as ready as Lugnuts to howl WP:BEFORE! at the drop of a byte, he doesn't seem to have exerted himself much on this pointy AfD ... and this really isn't a good look for someone who's Wikipedia's champion for creating SIGCOV-less sub-stubs, to the point that he was recently community banned from stub creation for six months. Obvious sources are obvious. I'm comfortable with calling this a bad faith nomination. Ravenswing 14:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Lugnuts, is this related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gösta Grandin in any way shape, or form? I'm also quite comfortable saying that BEFORE was not provided here at all, given the matter of only a couple minutes since the prior AFD nomination by you. You are being clearly disruptive. Hog Farm Talk 15:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Since I live on the east side of Detroit, and have driven through this specific area extensively, I know the location where Gratiot Avenue crosses the now underground Conner Creek is about 3 miles from the area the sources seem to be identifying with the later use of this name. It may require digging up more sources, but it seems that the name sort of migrated northward, or it covered an area that was several miles along Gratiot. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Closed early per WP:SKCRIT #2b. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Duboisville, Michigan

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

Non-notable place. Fails WP:GEO and WP:V. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep but significantly improve. Has full paragraph here, which is clearly about the same town but contradicts quite a few facts from the other source, here. No idea how this fails WP:V though, not hard to find these sources. Fram ( talk) 13:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
See also e.g. here: while it is a self-published source, it again makes it clear that this was a true village, not just some named farm or so. Fram ( talk) 13:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
And here, calling it "once a trading center of importance". Fram ( talk) 13:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Finally here it is called an "old village". By all accounts meets WP:GEO and WP:V quite clearly. Fram ( talk) 13:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Fram has very clearly found sources that show notability. Assuming I correctly copied what Romig said on this place, he seems to not be a very reliable source. I am going to try to incorporate Fram's finds into the article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep: For someone as ready as Lugnuts to howl WP:BEFORE! at the drop of a byte, he doesn't seem to have exerted himself much on this pointy AfD ... and this really isn't a good look for someone who's Wikipedia's champion for creating SIGCOV-less sub-stubs, to the point that he was recently community banned from stub creation for six months. Obvious sources are obvious. I'm comfortable with calling this a bad faith nomination. Ravenswing 14:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Redirects are cheap, but there is no consensus for one here. Star Mississippi 01:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Gösta Grandin

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

The subject lacks WP:SIGCOV in multiple, reliable and independent sources and thus fails WP:GNG. The subject also fails WP:NOLYMPICS in that he did not win a medal. In this case, Grandin not only didn't medal -- he was actually disqualified from the event. See Athletics at the 1936 Summer Olympics – Men's 50 kilometres walk. Cbl62 ( talk) 13:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete olympic competitors are no longer considered to be default notable unless they were medalists. There are no sources here which would add at all to passing GNG. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Noise
The notion that I am a "proxy" for JPL is absurd. I've historically disagreed with JPL far more often than not at AfD. Indeed, just last year, I took JPL to ANI over his AfD nominations. This contention is pure smoke and mirrors to avoid focusing on an AfD that is clearly meritorious. Cbl62 ( talk) 13:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Rubbish. Lambert adds to his blog, sorry talkpage, about the notability of a subject, and then you send it to AfD. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Shame on you for making such baseless claims in desperate defense of your insupportable sub-stub. Cbl62 ( talk) 13:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The links above show that it is the case that I've stated. Unless, of course, you didn't post on Lambert's talkpage about this article and its AfD. Oh, wait. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Nope. JPL posted about another one of your insupportable Olympic sub-stubs which led me to Grandin which I independently reviewed and found to be sorely and completely lacking. ... Curious whether you have anything to say about the substance of the AfD. Cbl62 ( talk) 13:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Yes. The discussion with you on Lambert's talkpage show this. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Still no comment on the substance of the AfD? Any SIGCOV to present showing that Grandin passes GNG? Cbl62 ( talk) 13:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
You did absolutely nothing wrong here, JPL. This is pure strategy on the part of Lugnuts to try to divert the focus of the discussion. Cbl62 ( talk) 13:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Apart from get you to proxy AfD for him, yep nothing wrong at all! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
How in the world did JPL proxy me to AfD an article he never even mentioned??? Oh... and still no comment on the substance of the AfD? Still no SIGCOV to present showing that Grandin passes GNG? Cbl62 ( talk) 13:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The link to another user's comments above were when I posted an ask on that user's talk page to see if he would look into nominating an article for deletion. Which he did not. That is very different than someone seeing a notice on something that I posted to my talk page. Which is in turn different from someone seeing a notice on something on my talk page and then going to look even further into the matter on their own and finding other articles that they do not think are at all notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:10, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Athletics at the 1936 Summer Olympics – Men's 50 kilometres walk - no evidence of passing GNG presented, and it might as well redirect to the article for the sole Olympics event he participated in. Hog Farm Talk 15:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Do we really want redirects to people who were disqualified from the event? If we redirect every article that we have on a person who participated in the Olympics who does not meet notability guidelines, a category like Category:1912 births will end up being about a quarter redirects to various Olympic pages. At present only about 0.5% of that category consists of redirects. Actually it may be closer to 0.25%. It does not even average one redirect for every page of 200 articles in the category. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
      • Switching to delete per other comments; we shouldn't be mirroring Olympedia and those looking for this obscure figure will be better served at a site like that. Hog Farm Talk 17:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: I'm not seeing any SIGCOV either, and I agree with JPL that nearly a century on, it's an unlikely search term. Ravenswing 16:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NOLYMPICS. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Worth noting - a vote (such as this one) based solely on an assertion that an article does not meet a non-gng criteria never reflects sufficient wp:before consideration. GNG is always enough. -- 2603:7000:2143:8500:30CD:F863:CA5C:68FC ( talk) 19:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    • No, GNG is not always enough. There is a way to read GNG that would cause 100% of candidates for US house to pass it, and a very large percentage of candidates for state legislature, at least in states other than New Hampshire (New Hampshire has a very large legislature, I think the largest in the US, and yet it has about a 25th the size the population of California), to pass it. So there are clearly cases where theoretically passing GNG is not enough. Anyway no one here has claimed at all that there is any source that in any way would add towards this individual passing GNG, so it is a mute point. To be fair we have not yet done much analysis on what type of sources on non-medaling Olympians may or may not add towards passing GNG, this is in part because well over 50% of our articles on Olympians, at least among those before 1960, have only 1 source, and it is one of the sources here that we have ruled in no way can even be used to add towards passing GNG. Not one of the sources on this particular article would add towards passing GNG. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:58, 25 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Pfizer. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 ( HAPPY 2022) 13:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Anacor

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

I nominated this for deletion in 2000 due to what I saw as a lack of notability at the time and it was kept. Although the main crux of the keep votes came down to insulting me over the nomination, saying it must be notable because it it developed two FDA approved drugs, or similar WP:ILIKEIT and WP:INTERESTING arguments. No one that voted keep really discussed the sourcing except to provide a couple of extremely trivial ones that related to them being bought out by Pfizer and an article that has to do with a compound in one of their drugs that has nothing to do with them except for saying in the article that they came up with it. Both of which are extremely WP:MILL. As drug companies routinely create pharmaceutical compounds and get bought out by other drug companies. So, I'm re-nominating this in the hopes that a better consensus, based on an actual discussion about the companies notability or lack of it, can occur this time around. Hopefully without the insults and other nonsense that occurred in the last discussion.

Just to throw it out there, in the original AfD I suggested redirecting or merging this to Pfizer as an ATD. I still think that doing so is a good option compared to doing nothing. Since there is some coverage of the company, even if it's extremely trivial. I just don't think there is enough to justify a stand alone article though. So I'm fine with anyone voting merge or redirect if they think it's justified compared to deleting the article outright. Adamant1 ( talk) 02:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Shellwood: Do you happen to know why the "AfDs for this article" sidebox includes articles that have nothing to do with this one in it? -- Adamant1 ( talk) 03:59, 14 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. This should be one sentence in Pfizer, and it already is. Most of the information in this article is background that is already covered elsewhere and has nothing to do with the subject; what is left is routine information about an acquired company. FalconK ( talk) 22:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect to Pfizer, with merging of any information deemed absolutely necessary; nothing of value will be lost. BD2412 T 18:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Michig ( talk) 19:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Arnolds Krūkliņš

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

The subject lacks WP:SIGCOV in multiple, reliable and independent sources and thus fails WP:GNG. The subject also fails WP:NOLYMPICS in that he did not win a medal. In this case, Krūkliņš not only didn't medal -- he was disqualified from the event. See Athletics at the 1936 Summer Olympics – Men's 50 kilometres walk. Cbl62 ( talk) 12:50, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete We clearly established that those who compete in the Olymics are not default notable, only medalist are. We lack any reliable sources to show that this person is notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Noise
*Comment It's clear that Cbl62 is acting as a proxy for Lambert to log AfDs, due to Lambert's AfD restrictions, something that Lambert has been warned not to do very recently. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The notion that I am a "proxy" for JPL is absurd. I've historically disagreed with JPL far more often than not at AfD. Indeed, just last year, I took JPL to ANI over his AfD nominations. This contention is pure smoke and mirrors to avoid focusing on an AfD that is clearly meritorious. Cbl62 ( talk) 13:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Rubbish. Lambert adds to his blog, sorry talkpage, about the notability of a subject, and then you send it to AfD. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Shame on you for making such baseless claims in desperate defense of your insupportable sub-stub. Cbl62 ( talk) 13:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The links above show that it is the case that I've stated. Unless, of course, you didn't post on Lambert's talkpage about this article and its AfD. Oh, wait. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Nope. JPL posted about another one of your insupportable Olympic sub-stubs which led me to Krūkliņš which I independently reviewed and found to be sorely and completely lacking. ... Curious whether you have anything to say about the substance of the AfD. Cbl62 ( talk) 13:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Yes. The discussion with you on Lambert's talkpage show this. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Still no comment on the substance of the AfD? Any SIGCOV to present showing that Krūkliņš passes GNG? Cbl62 ( talk) 13:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Clearly the nom didn't do the basics and check the Latvian article. There's this and this for starters. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Are those sources reliable? the first one is substantial coverage, the second is not. 1 source does not amount to passing GNG, and that one source I am less than convinced is reliable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
      • I won't opine to keep a subject without any significant results, but I could note that the second source Latvijas Enciklopēdija looks to be a concise encyclopedia, which explains its brevity. Geschichte ( talk) 21:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I have expanded the article with added sources. He won multiple national championships, both in Latvia and in the USSR after it became a Soviet republic. Of the sources linked here by Lugnuts, the first is a sports site, showing continuing coverage in independent sources outside databases, and the second is a Latvian encyclopedia entry reproduced at lv:Ogres Centrālā bibliotēka (for some reason I can't see the archived version at Latvian Wikipedia, so I was glad to see that link that works for me). The Latvian Olympic Committee page on him (archived here; since the link is broken for me at least, and in order to use it as a reference, I junked the Wikidata external links template) is also a reliable source for his career, not only for his one Olympics appearance, and I added a local history reference that has details on what happened at the Olympics: he was one of three Latvians competing, they had been advanced automatically to the final, and his disqualification during the race was a surprise and was not explained. Curiously, that source has a varying death date for him, and the encyclopedia entry has a varying birth date; all other sources agree, so I merely left hidden notes in those references. I also left a hidden note on the 1941 occupation; depending on the date of his win, it could have been either the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. Yngvadottir ( talk) 03:20, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Hasn't won a medal at the Olympics. Unless the notability criteria has changed. GoodDay ( talk) 20:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    From WP:NSPORT: "Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted." BeanieFan11 ( talk) 21:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep, per expansion by Yngvadottir. I can't read Latvian but am willing to AGF that its SIGCOV. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 21:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Per Beanie. 2603:7000:2143:8500:30CD:F863:CA5C:68FC ( talk) 19:32, 23 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Reliable sources are present. Deb ( talk) 12:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:HEY, WP:BEFORE failure. Cavarrone 13:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Ajpolino ( talk) 23:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

BeyondGenderAgenda

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

It would appear to me that this is at best a laudable proposal that gained no traction, at worst a marketing ploy. OK, so looking this up, I found this on the Welt (German TV channel) website: "Das ist er offenbar nicht. Diversität wird in deutschen Unternehmen nach wie vor zu wenig gelebt, wie die bundesweite Initiative Beyond Gender Agenda urteil." Even with my rudimentary German, this jumped out at me as pretty obviously promotional, even before I saw www.welt.de/sponsored/ in the URL. Please also see https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:L%C3%B6schkandidaten/28._Dezember_2021#BeyondGenderAgenda_(gel%C3%B6scht)

Pete AU aka Shirt58 ( talk) 10:27, 14 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment: This is neither of the things suggested by the nom. But that's not an argument for keep - I actually think the standard here would be WP:NCORP, which is pretty hard to meet even for pretty notable-as-in-famous institutions. This is a DEI consulting company founded in 2020, so I kind of doubt it. The press section on their website is pretty comprehensive, if anyone wants to go through these sources: [10]. -- asilvering ( talk) 06:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Actually, I guess I should reframe this comment as a weak delete since I think it's pretty unlikely anyone is going to be able to build a keep argument. Have I gone through all of those sources to see if there's independent, significant coverage? No. Do I think anyone else will, and additionally then be able to make a case for keep out of what they find? Well... also no. -- asilvering ( talk) 06:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yikes, let's put this in the rearview mirror. Thanks all for your participation, and thanks to the folks who sorted out the SPI in the middle of this. Ajpolino ( talk) 23:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Yannis Assael

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

Recreation of an article that was deleted under AfD per WP:TOOSOON one year ago. The only change since then that I see is that he was on the Forbes 30 under 30, which we do not usually regard as contributing to notability (and indeed, which is often a sign that it is WP:TOOSOON). WP:BEFORE showed similar citation record as previously for WP:NPROF, and few other signs of notability. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 11:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per the sources provided in the first AFD. No new deletion rationale is presented in this nomination. Enough reliable sources have been provided to justify my keep vote. Birdsandwasps ( talk) 12:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC) — Birdsandwasps ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
    Er... The first AfD ended in a deletion. What notability criterion do you think the subject meets? Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 12:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    Oh sorry I had another look at the deletion page. Forbes provides strong notability in conjunction with the rest of the sources (top journals and mentions in several reputable publications). I will try to expand the article during the weekend. Regards Birdsandwasps ( talk) 12:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as WP:Too soon for a very high-citation field. Xxanthippe ( talk) 21:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC). reply
  • Note I included mentions straight from the Financial Times, BBC, the Observer and Science Magazine. Surely, these are more than enough to comply with notability within international press? Birdsandwasps ( talk) 13:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    If a source doesn't mention the subject (as most of the ones you mention do not), or only mentions them once (as does the FT), then it doesn't contribute much towards notability. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 13:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    BBC has shared a quote by the researchers, which links to the PDF version of the publication under their names. Financial Times and the Verge both mention Y.A., whilst Observer highlights Pythia too. I don't really see the problem here. Birdsandwasps ( talk) 13:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I voted delete in the previous discussion but in its current state the article should remain. Mightberightorwrong ( talk) 13:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC) — Mightberightorwrong ( talk reply
  • Keep Sources seem reliable enough. Of course the article needs to be expanded, but the person is notable. Glucken123 ( talk) 19:42, 23 January 2022 (UTC) reply
extended discussion with socks collapsed
  • @ Glucken123 and Mightberightorwrong: can you comment on what notability criterion you think the subject passes, based on which sources? Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 13:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Russ Woodroofe: With all due respect, but your main argument that most articles on LipNet don't mention Assael's name is factually untrue. Let's see; the FT article highlights his name as one of the two lead researchers behind the development of Pythia [1]. How often do you come across experimental AI algorithms that are able to restore ancient Greek texts in a matter of seconds? That's why there is also a Wiki article on Pythia. In regards to the BBC article [2] on LipNet, not only mentions his name but also provides a quote from both researchers: Machine lip-readers have enormous potential, with applications in improved hearing aids, silent dictation in public spaces, covert conversations, speech recognition in noisy environments, biometric identification and silent-movie processing, wrote the researchers." That hyperlinked article is the PDF version of the pre-print publication, where Assael is evidently the lead author. I agree with your previous edit to remove Arxiv publications, but don't you agree that there is certainly some notability here? LipNet received national coverage in 2016 ( a simple Google search is always a good idea). I also agree that the article lacked notability in its previous state however even users who participated in the previous deletion proposal, voted against deleting it this time. The latest version is full of references that should do the trick. I hope my response was suitably diplomatic 😌 Glucken123 ( talk) 16:00, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Glucken123: it sounds like you are arguing that Assael meets WP:BASIC notability. (Well, with a side of WP:ILIKEIT.) That would require significant coverage of Assael from multiple independent reliable sources. The papers and preprints are not independent. The FT mentions Assael in passing (as I had previously said) but I think this is far short of WP:SIGCOV. I do not even see Assael's name anywhere in the BBC article -- perhaps I am missing something?? (Please tell me if I am!) I also do not see him mentioned in the other articles in reliable sources. It does look plausible to me that LipNet is notable, but notability is not inherited. I agree that a redirect could be a sensible alternative to deletion. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 16:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Russ Woodroofe: You need to elaborate (oh, and define 'significant coverage' pls!). You are asking for significant coverage, but this does not always apply to all academics-researchers out there. After all I am using both the citation profile and sources to back my claims focused on WP:SIGCOV notability. The fact that BBC (and the FT) clearly highlight the achievements of AI algorithms developed by Yannis Assael (Pythia + LipNet as a lead author) is more than enough to link the person to the subject even in articles where his surname is not mentioned. It appears that LipNet was mainly developed by two people, same as Pythia. The hyperlink I was referring to, can be found right after the quotation [1] (click on wrote the researchers or look at the hyperlink). Like I said, preprint publications should not be used on Wikipedia - you're absolutely right on this. However, the notability of some preprint papers (as they are lauded by the BBC as a breakthrough achievement in lip reading applications) should be considered encyclopaedic content, hence the mentions in other reputable sources. IMO all the above-mentioned achievements meet the notability criteria fully. Glucken123 ( talk) 17:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Glucken123: academics can also reach notability through the WP:NPROF criteria, which I believe is what you are now referring to. This usually would require a high level of citations. How high depends somewhat on the field. Consensus in the last AfD from Wikipedians experienced with this set of criteria was that it is WP:TOOSOON for Assael in this regard. "Wrote the researchers" is not a mention of Assael, except very indirectly. I will answer some of your other questions about notability on your talk page. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 18:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Russ Woodroofe: Absolutely - my point is that a medium level of citations alongside significant coverage on mainstream media can be combined in the case of Assael. AI is indeed a highly cited field and with the previous consensus, things could have been different indeed. In its current state, however, the article was significantly expanded as it presents evidence backed by solid references (and Forbes IMO also is reliable). It seems that we disagree about BBC, but that is ok. I will respond to your points on my talk page in a bit. Thanks! Glucken123 ( talk) 19:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Compared to the previous article there is now significant coverage about the person/research. The content is based on enough reliable sources: New Scientist (2x), Science, Financial Times, BBC, Verge, Observer, Independent etc. Finally, if the person has made breakthroughs that are used by NVIDIA, I am happy to vote for keep as a notable person. AntoniadK ( talk) 22:11, 23 January 2022 (UTC) — AntoniadK ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • Delete The first AfD got it right here. Involved in a couple projects, but his actual role in them is unclear, and most of the press coverage is about the projects (many of the cited articles don't mention him at all). Nor would I call the press coverage in-depth; the item in The Verge is about the best of the lot, and it's only a brief interview. I sense a lot of churnalism and PR involved; these are the kinds of stories that don't even bother to seek out comment from someone not involved in the research. In principle, press reports could carry a researcher over the bar by talking about the work and not the person, but this is not the type of serious coverage that could qualify. His citation profile doesn't amount to a WP:PROF#C1 pass. XOR'easter ( talk) 07:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
extended discussion with socks collapsed
    • This is very common in academia, opening any of the links of the published work in those articles I see from the authors list that was led/co-led all the research mentioned. For example the the Verge article that you mention is about his work "LipNet". I think that 15 news articles from BBC, MIT Tech Review, New Scientist is a reasonable number to show the credibility of the press coverage. AntoniadK ( talk) 10:50, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
      • I will have to agree with AntoniadK on this. I find the comment on churnalism a little exaggerated and perhaps unnecessary? It does not look like PR at all. Theoretically speaking, the citation profile alongside the coverage can amount to a clear WP:PROF#C1 pass. On top of that there is clear proof that Assael is one of the two main researchers behind LipNet (check the research paper link on the BBC article) and Pythia, which is mentioned in the Financial Times piece. Birdsandwasps ( talk) 13:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
        • New Scientist is dross. MIT Technology Review is often not a lot better. In this case, the Tech Review item is just a blog post summarizing a few other webpages; so, it's not WP:SIGCOV. The BBC item was based entirely upon the researchers' own preprint and an Internet comment thread about it. Should we call that "in-depth reporting"? No, we should have the bare modicum of self-respect required not to debase ourselves that way. Learn what churnalism looks like. The media reporting here is nearly pure PR, recycled for easy clicks. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
          • Comment You might want to read WP:NEWSCIENTIST and WP:FORBES. Both notes appear to be quite clear on the quality of the sources. There is no evidence of any PR related to the BBC piece. Glucken123 ( talk) 19:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
            • I've read them. "Generally reliable" is not universally reliable. Clicking one step further and reading the most recent discussion that the text at RSP is supposed to summarize, it turns out to be substantially harsher than the summary makes it sound. Setting that aside, which we probably shouldn't, the claim in question here is sensationalist and thus contentious, and so even WP:NEWSCIENTIST advises caution. WP:FORBES is beside the point: nobody questions that he really was listed on their "30 under 30". We're just saying that that isn't adequate to establish notability. The BBC story is so superficial that it doesn't matter whether it was originally motivated by a press release or not; it fails to be WP:SIGCOV. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
              • The most recent discussion does not indicate any disagreements about the use of WP:NEWSCIENTIST in WP. It's just a discussion, completely unrelated to the reliability of the source. Therefore, I suggest you read the conversation you provided as evidence as users agreed that it is too early to tell. Next. Glucken123 ( talk) 20:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
                • "Completely unrelated"? A discussion where an editor says A lot what New Scientist does is frankly sensationalism and churnalism? And another editor stated They called me in two different occasions to ask for comments for an article, and badly misquoted me to make it more juicy? Sure sounds like a discussion of reliability to me. The sentiment was expressed that it was too early to tell whether being bought by the Daily Mail was bad, but no formal consensus was established in favor of that. And even if being bought by the Daily Mail has not changed them for the worse, they were already bad for contentious, controversial or sensationalist topics. XOR'easter ( talk) 21:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
                  • Alright, let's try this again. Unless there is an official change in WP:NEWSCIENTIST, approved by other users, the article can still be used to back evidence in WP articles. So far, your comments have been somewhat.. volatile and counterproductive (see below [1] [2]). More specifically, the above response is just your own personal opinion as you are exclusively referring to comments shared by other users. All I can see is a big green light in WP:NEWSCIENTIST - pretty sure you can see that too. Imagine if others users looked at The Times or The Wall Street Journal (both green-lighted) and argued that, because of Rupert Murdoch they should not be used in WP articles anymore. This could only be made possible through a vote. Feel free to initiate that! Am I missing something here? I don't think so. Since this is a deletion discussion, why don't we stick to the policy and avoid any unnecessary POV, shall we? Glucken123 ( talk) 21:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
                    • What is "volatile" or "counterproductive" about comparing one publication described as a publicity stunt/vanity scam with another that has often been described in the same way? Or in pointing out that there were strong negative comments in a discussion that the summary at WP:RSP gives no indication of? I can indeed plainly see that New Scientist is listed in green at WP:RSP. What I have been saying all along is that even if we ignore common sense and take that as absolute gospel, it's still not a source that contributes meaningfully to notability in this case. XOR'easter ( talk) 22:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
                    • Addendum: the sources added here are interviews, which are generally seen as iffy for the purposes of establishing wiki-notability. Since the interviews were seemingly prompted by the Forbes "30 under 30", itself a dubious proposition, I can't quite say that they represent the world at large taking note of the article subject in a meaningful way (glomming onto somebody else's near-meaningless publicity isn't the same as coming to an independent judgment that someone's work is important). I sincerely thank the editor for putting in the work to find them, but I can't say that they sway my opinion. XOR'easter ( talk) 22:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
                      • That is not true as the article from To Vima discusses achievements within the field, including his other future projects involving machine learning. The second article from Kathimerini pays tribute to Forbes 30 under 30 indeed, but also discusses his achievements. Other authors have provided reliable sources such as the FT, Verge and Independent. Glucken123 ( talk) 22:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
                        • To Vima leads with the Forbes 30 under 30. Kathimerini explicitly chose to interview three people because they were on it. Ta Nea did the same thing (and apparently relied on Kathimerini for at least some of their information). These aren't sources, they're clones. As Russ Woodroofe argued above, the FT did not give significant coverage. The item in The Verge is a brief interview, so again dubious for wiki-notability purposes. The item in the Independent is seemingly reliable, but also pretty insubstantial (short, and failing the "get a comment from someone not involved in the research" test). XOR'easter ( talk) 23:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
                          • Errr no! To Vima only mentions it as an achievement - it proceeds to discuss (in a long article completely unrelated to Forbes!) his research profile and projects. Kathimerini indeed interviewed the three Greeks because of Forbes 30 under 30, but still does not change the fact that it's the leading Greek newspaper! Finally, Ta Nea mentions Kathimerini in a different section - completely unrelated to Asssael. I did not say at any point that the Financial Times piece gives significant coverage. But together with other mentions (which are more than enough IMO) and his citation profile, could certainly make a strong case against a potential deletion of the article. Glucken123 ( talk) 23:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
                            • To Vima starts off with a non-achievement and treats it as an achievement, then provides some empty fawning; I can't honestly say that it's the kind of serious biographical profile which can help an interview count as a good source. I mention Ta Nea relying upon Kathimerini to indicate the shallowness of the reporting effort that seems to have gone into the blurbs they provided. The fundamental problem here is that we have a heap of superficial or otherwise mediocre sources, in a topic area that is rife with sensationalism. That's a bad foundation to try to build an article upon. XOR'easter ( talk) 23:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, no significant change since my delete opinion in the previous AfD, other than the "Forbes 30 under 30" listing, on which I agree with the nominator that this sort of early-career publicity is inadequate for notability in the absence of anything else. If there were a single 30 under 30 listing for all discipline globally, it might be worth something, but they break it down into so many subcategories by specialty and region that it becomes meaningless publicity, almost a vanity scam. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    • It does have a Marquis Who's Who feel to it. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Support comes only from spas. 22:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC).
  • Comment I added other mentions including TechCrunch and included three pieces from Greek media ( Kathimerini + To Vima). One of them is an interview with Hellenic Broadcasting Corporation. Feel free to further-review those edits. Glucken123 ( talk) 15:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • information Administrator note Passerby note that I blocked two !voters here per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Birdsandwasps, and that [11] may be of interest to the closing administrator. -- Blablubbs ( talk) 17:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Addendum to above All keep votes appear to be from sockpuppets and have been struck through. Lavalizard101 ( talk) 17:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Goldmines Telefilms Pvt Ltd

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

Repeatedly recreated by multiple editors over the last few months. Time to decide whether it is notable and can have an article (at a better title), or not notable and then new versions can be G4 deleted and title variations salted. See Draft:Goldmines Picture, Goldmines Telefilms Pvt. Ltd, Draft:Goldmines Telefilms Pvt. Ltd., and Goldmines Telefilms (perhaps others as well?). Fram ( talk) 10:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

I think the topic is notable and have backing of sources. I provided quite a few at the article. Success think ( talk) 11:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: Nothing to show independent notability, fails WP:GNG, WP:NCORP. Sources need to have significant coverage on the company, not on specific productions. There is an existing draft that should be worked on until accepted by a reviewer. Ravensfire ( talk) 14:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

The subject is notable, and I'm working on its development, give sometim. I also provided refs to verification. Dharma Productions have article than why not this production ? Have petients. Success think ( talk) 16:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: Some notability, but not really enough to keep it intact. Glucken123 ( talk) 19:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Success think, that's why there is a draft article, where it CAN be worked on and developed with patience. When it's in main article space, it needs to be in decent shape. Sources need to be about the COMPANY primary, not about a particular production. Ravensfire ( talk) 16:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Ravensfire: I did some work, are you satisfied the sub is notable. As far I know 2 or 3 refs is also enough on WP and I also saw many articles are present her without a single source. This sub is notable. Success think ( talk) 17:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC) I add more data in Goldmines article & provided 12 refs. I think it is notable now and no need to delete it. So close this discussion. Success think ( talk) 18:50, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Another promotional effort from undisclosed paid editors. The subject fails NCORP. This article relies heavily on one citation (used many times) that is an interview. Much of the rest is routine or churnalism. I checked one source that doesn't support assertions in the article. Chris Troutman ( talk) 21:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Company does not have any real significance or any real news reports. It is just known as a dubbing company but that is about it. I would suggest it gets moved to the draft space or just entirely deleted it does not even have any purpose to be present. SP013 ( talk) 06:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply

@ SP013: Sir, I wrote this article & I'm not a paid editor. I got into this sub just 'cause of Pushpa : The Rise, I added more data into it and if you fellow editors think it's not worth to have page on WP, tell me without wasting time, I put some work on it. I'll not add anything now into it. If you it's not follow WP: NOTABLE than your free, But Economic Times have all the information about this firm, ET is notable newspaper of India and you can also add. Success think ( talk) 07:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Robert E. Dunker

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

Fails WP:GNG. The two existing sources are not independent One of the two sources is not independent, the other is just an announcement of the opening of a student center named for him, and I can't find any others. Clarityfiend ( talk) 10:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Academic notability point 6 was never meant to be broad enough to cover the heads of community colleges. Some may be notable through widespread and sustainted coverage in newsmedia. However we should expect at least as good and as wide ranging coverage in that regard as we would of mayors, and the coverage here does not meet that threshold. I strongly suspect the same is true of his successor as head of this institution that we also have an article on. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I agree with JPL that community college presidency is not automatically notable, but only through WP:GNG-level coverage, which we do not have here. The sources in the article are a non-independent one from the school he worked for and a non-in-depth one from a local newspaper article that is mostly about something else (a facility named after him). My searches didn't turn up anything elsewhere that would change that picture. — David Eppstein ( talk) 08:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete in addition to failing GNG, the content focuses mostly on the history of the community college and not the actual subject. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 14:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 20:03, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Dahlia Salah

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

Lacks the notability required to have an article. While she meets the very lax indicators of WP:NFOOTY by having played for a national team, NFOOTY / NSPORTS explicitly state that they only give a presumption of notability, and that in the end WP:GNG must be met. The only non-database source whioh gives some attention to her is an interview by the Gibraltar FA, which isn't an independent source of course. Fram ( talk) 10:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 10:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 10:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 10:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. International players are usually assumed to be more notable than club players, as it is a higher level, but the article says she has stopped playing to study? If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Just found via digging on FA Full-Time that she is currently on the books of QPR, albeit in their reserve side at the 8th level of the pyramid. Though it's not an ideal level, it still shows she's playing. VampireKilla ( talk) 00:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per consensus at similar women's football AfDs such as Linda Oe, Victoria Balomenos and Tessy Bamberg-Schitter. Having full international caps is certainly a notable achievement (playing at the highest level) and warrants a stand-alone article. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Spiderone has played for a National team at International level.Further subject is 20 years old and actively playing. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 18:45, 23 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    • So no evidence at all of meeting WP:GNG, just the same tired Sports SNG arguments which lead to people wanting to abolish it all together, and which people at the related discussion claim are not made and everybody knows that meeting NSPORTS without meeting GNG is of course not sufficient... Fram ( talk) 09:06, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete She clearly does not have the sourcing to pass GNG. She plays for the team of a Gibraltar. Let us not abuse the term "national team", and treat a team that looses to Liechstenstein like it is the same as one that is competitive against Brazil. We need to be logical in how we apply criteria, and if we start treating every member of every "national" team of a micro-state or a dinky overseas territory of another country as default notable the results will be absurd. If one of these "national" teams actually wins several international games, and maybe even is a contender in the world cup it will make sense, but acting like the team for a place with a population of 34,000 and an area of 2.6 square miles is in any sense a "national" team, especially when the place is an overseas dependency, is just not a realistic assessment of the situation involved. She is young, and so may well at some point play at a level that generates significant coverage, but we do not know that, we cannot predict the future, and we do not create articles until the coverage has actually come to be, not just because we think coverage likely. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:44, 25 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I disagree with the above notion that smaller national teams are less important than larger ones, she plays in the same qualifiers as other international players. Passes GNG, and presumably GNG.-- Ortizesp ( talk) 14:42, 26 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    • She only played in a friendly, not even in a qualifier. And being one of the 11 (plus substitutes) best players at any given time is somewhat easier in a "country" of 32,000 people than in a country of millions of course. National teams like the one from Gibraltar have never come close to winning anything or to qualifying for any tournament, the players in the team are usually not important otherwise (don't play at a high level), and most importantly they don't get the coverage needed for an article. Fram ( talk) 08:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Fram's and JPL's rationales are spot-on. Meeting NFOOTY is irrelevant if GNG is failed, and no one has produced evidence of SIGCOV. There is far more precedent supporting deletion of SSG-meeting, GNG-failing footballers than the three AfDs cited in support of keeping. JoelleJay ( talk) 18:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Deepamoni Saikia

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

No Notability. Doesn't pass WP:GNG. Lack of citations. Arunudoy ( talk) 09:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:03, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Priyanka Saha

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

The bio article does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Has few passing mentions in un-reliable sources. – Kavyansh.Singh ( talk) 09:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC) Kavyansh.Singh ( talk) 09:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy delete: as G11, unambiguous advertising or promotion. –– FormalDude talk 09:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    Hey I did some research and found some more reference to the subject on google. I think that if given some time, more sources and references would come up. May be it would be a good idea to hold the deletion for a few weeks. That is my opinion. Wiki3editor1986 ( talk) 09:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Hey @ Kavyansh.Singh
  • Nice to hear from you. I do understand your concern about the GNG, however, in my research, I found that the subject got an award. And the citation number [4] is the list of people who got the award in 2021 with a short description of what they were awarded. The list was published in The Print, which I guess is a reliable and a notable source. Your citation number [3] is of Republic World pray explain how it is un-reliable. Further more, when I tried to improve the article, the popup suggested that we source from Google, and you are suggesting that Google Knowledge Graph is unreliable, this has gotten me confused. As even now, as I am trying to understand, there is a suggestion under the name Priyanka Saha near the top of this page that is suggesting we find sources from Google. Sincerely I am scratching my head in confusion. Wiki3editor1986 ( talk) 10:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Hi @ Wiki3editor1986, sorry for being bit unclear in my previous comment. So, Google is merely a search engine. It (almost) provides all the sources available on the internet. Google itself is not a source. The top of this article says that you can find sources through Google. Don't use Google or Google knowledge panel as a source. As for The Print citation, yes, it is generally reliable. But, (1) it just has a passing mention of the topic, that is, it does not provides information about the topic in detail. It is fine to use that source to cite that she received that award. But, it does not help establish the notability. (2) If the India Icon Awards, had itself been notable per Wikipedia standards, it would have helped in assertion of notability. But that award is itself not notable, thus we can't claim that the subject is notable as she won that award. And as for the Republic World/Republic TV source, per WP:REPUBLICTV, "[in 2021,] there was a consistent and overwhelming consensus to deprecate Republic TV. [Republic TV] Editors cite hoaxes, fake news, fabrication, misinformation and conspiracy theories.". Thus, it should not be used. – Kavyansh.Singh ( talk) 11:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    Thank You @ Kavyansh.Singh for clarifying. My opinion in the matter was, as my research yielded some sources that were not originally in the article, it might so be that more would come and they might be reliable and verifiable as per the standards. So in place of deleting the page immediately, would it not be better to draftify per WP:HEY as @ FormalDude suggested and let the article provider improve on it, make proper and verifiable citations over time and re-submit for review? Wiki3editor1986 ( talk) 12:15, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Just a note that Wiki3editor1986 has been globally blocked as a "[s]pam-only account" – Kavyansh.Singh ( talk) 18:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete. Geschichte ( talk) 08:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Ronald Rose D

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

Wikipedia is not a Linkedin; WP:NOTCV. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens ( talk) 07:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:09, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Sadanand Menon

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

Going by GNG and the notability guidelines for creative professionals and for teachers in higher education, the subject does not seem notable. Most attention in RSes has been about allegations of sexual misconduct, and the only thing in the article apart from the lead is a section about those allegations. Seeing as he's not been convicted of anything and seems to be a fairly low-profile individual, the section is a BLPvio; apart from that, there is no real substance in the article. There is only one ref from RS that's directly about him (cite no. 1) and even that is very bare-bones. Searches on JSTOR and TWL return nothing of note either, so the article should be deleted. W. Tell DCCXLVI ( talk to me!/ c) 06:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Samia Bouazza

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

non notable businesswoman. Fails WP:GNG. Lack of significant coverage about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. DMySon ( talk) 05:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

https://www.thenationalnews.com/business/markets/2022/01/14/abu-dhabis-multiply-group-looks-to-aggressively-invest-845m-of-its-listings-proceeds/ https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/abu-dhabis-multiply-group-plans-%24845-mln-ma-expansion-drive https://www.arabianbusiness.com/gcc/uae/468738-abu-dhabis-multiply-invests-again-in-us-taxi-advertising-platform https://www.gdnonline.com/Details/1018232 ( Starling2022 ( talk) 05:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)) reply

  • Delete We should not have articles that were rejected at AfC. The proper procedure is to resubmit for recogsideration. We need to stop letting people do end runs around our processes. We also need to start requiring all articles to go to AfC. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

SnapEx

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

Notability is not inherited from the available references. Fails WP:GNG also fails WP:NCORP. DMySon ( talk) 05:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: The company is the first one who launched its token that uses the CFD platform. We as Wikipedia editors can add more resources and make the page more valuable to the users. We can use More citations needed template for lack of verifiability instead of deletion.-- Daringsmith ( talk) 06:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Move to draft, otherwise Delete. out of the 6 refs currently. Crunchbase is deprecated as a source, Coin Market Cap and Coin Carp, Bit Times are just exchange listings, Asia Crypto market is a company profile page, Set of Launch Crypto... is a press release. A quick search on Google indicates mainly on the launch of the CFD product, most likely a result of the press release. – robertsky ( talk) 07:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: in agreement with DMySon. - Hatchens ( talk) 07:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Greenfield, North Dakota

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

We have the rare gift in this state of a topo from 1918 which shows this to be another siding, with the bonus of an aerial from 1964 showing a pair of grain elevators and nothing else. It's all gone now, but in any case, not a notable settlement. Mangoe ( talk) 05:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 12:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Wildfires in San San Bernardino County, California

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

There is absolutely nothing in this article that suggests wildfires in San Bernardino are more notable than, say, wildfires in San Diego County or Shasta County. I cannot see why such a topic warrants an article of its own, especially if the article mostly consists of a list. Love of Corey ( talk) 05:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. Geschichte ( talk) 08:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Naked Truth (band)

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku ( talk) 04:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was speedy delete. (non-admin closure) — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 14:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Rayne Fernandez

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

Tried to find sources on both Google and Google news, and I couldn't find any. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 04:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

The article on Rayne Fernandez was not written by her. Rayne's management team created the Rayne Fernandez account and wrote the article of Rayne Fernandez through valid sources via her website (www.raynefernandez.com, extensive google search, and her social media accounts). Please reconsider deleting this account and advise on improving the article. Thank for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:3F00:8FA0:5DF2:5B53:62F9:6BDD ( talk) 05:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC) (moved from above the heading) reply

1. articles shouldn't be created by those with a COI about them (in this case the management team making this WP:UPE). 2. Her website and socail media accountsare not RS that can be used to determine notability. Lavalizard101 ( talk) 12:10, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Kearny Arlington

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

I can barely find evidence of the teams existence and certainly not enough to pass NORG. The American Cup that they won is stated in the article to be different from the notable American Cup. It just doesn't seem the team was particularly notable. Tartar Torte 03:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Tentative Delete - Two sources provided. One is an archive of what appears to be a fan-run website without an editorial process. The other is an article from the New York Times, which, if it contained the information in question, would be a clear indication of notability. The trouble I have is that I clicked the PDF linked in the article, and nothing I see there mentions soccer in any way... the PDF talks about golf, yachting, polo, track and field, baseball, and a racist crime report, but no soccer (or association football) that I can see. Now, this PDF is only a clipping from the newspaper, and its entirely possible that the newpaper did talk about this soccer team on that day, and it's just not in the PDF... but there's nothing here as far as I can see. This !vote will change to keep if a valid source is found. Fieari ( talk) 04:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, per nominator. Even with the NYT article, doesn't seem like enough to pass WP:GNG. Spf121188 ( talk) 17:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:50, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 21:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - @ GiantSnowman:, your comment seems to have been deleted before it was submitted Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Sorry, IT issues, fixed. Giant Snowman 21:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Absolutely not notability here. There are no sources and the ones (only two in total) in the reference list cannot be used to retain this article on WP. Glucken123 ( talk) 19:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. Tartar Torte 21:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:15, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Charlie Tjoe

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

Both references provided in the general references page are unreliable, and overall the subject appears to just be an actor who doesn't have much coverage at all I could find. Also, the name in the article title is misspelled. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 03:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 02:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

The Filipino Post

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

Notability in question. The newspaper exists but Google search suggests that it is an obscure publication. The article has also been unreferenced since 2011. Lenticel ( talk) 02:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Wojciech Flera

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

Fails WP:BIO. Diplomats are not inherently notable. This person did not even become ambassador but a lower ranked consul. Nothing in gnews. LibStar ( talk) 01:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom, and google news search with 0 hits. Fieari ( talk) 01:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 02:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 02:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete basically no reliable sources or in-depth coverage. They aren't even the ambassador, just "Deputy Chief". Wgullyn ( talk) 02:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above, has just 3 references. Severe storm 28 02:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Three references to independent reliable sources that devote truly significant coverage to the topic are sufficient to establish notability. This is not such a case. No such coverage has yet been brought forward. This appears to be a non-notable mid level diplomat just doing his job. Cullen328 ( talk) 02:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete people who actually hold ambassadorial rank are not default notable. Those who are not actual ambassadors are even less likely to be notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Financial transaction

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

This is essentially a long dictionary definition with some arbitrary examples, some of which are quite imprecise (ie, a bank account isn't inherently a "financial transaction" in and of itself). Unsourced for a decade, largely original research. Lots of pages link here, so maybe this should redirect to a better, more appropriate article? ZimZalaBim talk 01:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 02:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 02:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep there are definitely reliable sources about the topic. Just because the article isn't sourced right now doesn't mean good sources don't exist. It is rated of high importance to two WikiProjects, so it is definitely notable. Wgullyn ( talk) 02:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, this article is far from being a dictionary definition and there are a large number of books and papers dedicated this topic. The issues with this article can be resolved through the normal editing process. SailingInABathTub ( talk) 20:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep unquestionably notable. PianoDan ( talk) 17:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 01:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Maya Dobreva

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

Fails WP:BIO. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Hardly any coverage. There is also a badminton player of the same name that gets more coverage. LibStar ( talk) 01:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 13:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC) reply

1977 South Dakota Coyotes football team

1977 South Dakota Coyotes football team (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Draft which was moved to mainspace in quite a WP:POINTY manner. No prose whatsoever beyond a textual restatement of statistics included in the infobox. Each year, there are hundreds if not thousands of university sports teams, and most of their seasons are not independently notable. There is no indication how this one is supposedly outstanding enough that it warrants an article. Fails WP:NOTSTATS, WP:NSEASONS and WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. None of the sources are anything but routine match coverage, also failing WP:SIGCOV. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 00:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 01:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 01:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, per the sources in the article. Meets GNG. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 01:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    Nonsense. The sources in the article are routine match reports (something which is easily verifiable from their dates and their contents) and do not meet SIGCOV. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 01:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - In light of the expansion and sourcing, this meets WP:GNG. Fieari ( talk) 23:42, 23 January 2022 (UTC) Delete - Looking at the South Dakota Coyotes football page, I could see an argument for having an article for the 1973, 1985, 1986, 2006, 2017, and 2021 seasons... but not other years than these. (I could also see an argument for having an article on none of these.) This does seem to fail WP:NSEASONS, which specifies that top college teams can have articles on years they went to championship-- this is not such. Honestly, I rather wish wikipedia did allow indiscriminate lists of facts like this as long as reliable verifiability is met (in which case we would keep this article), but that's a discussion for elsewhere. Current standards say no. Alas. Fieari ( talk) 01:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Fieari: In light of the substantial expansion of the article and arguments below, would you be willing to give this a second look? Cbl62 ( talk) 19:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Yep, I'll change my !vote above. Fieari ( talk) 23:42, 23 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Question. The standard proposed by Fieari would imply the deletion of many thousands of articles. I'm not raising OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I'm saying that WP:NSEASONS doesn't describe current reality, in which individual season articles are created for every team at the Division I FBS level, and a goodly number at the FCS level (which this is, more or less). You could do a merge into an article about South Dakota Coyotes seasons in the 1970s, and in fact NSEASONS suggests that outcome, but that may not make for a good experience for the reader. I suppose what I'm saying is that while RandomCanadian has a reasonable and valid point grounded in policy and guidelines, those policies and guidelines don't match the facts on the ground. Under those circumstances, I think the movement to mainspace is less pointy and more the frustrated reaction of an editor who's not sure why this season of South Dakota football is being singled out for special treatment, as opposed to the other 73. Mackensen (talk) 02:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Mackensen: It has always been understood that the entirety of NSPORTS (including NSEASONS) is an inclusive standard, rather than an exclusive season. If a season receives SIGCOV in multiple, reliable sources, it qualifies as notable under GNG, regardless of whether or not it falls within NSEASONS. Cbl62 ( talk) 02:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Also, NSEASONS is drafted to cover all college sports, and in most sports, the coverage is such that most season articles would not pass GNG. College football is different in that the SIGCOV is far more extensive, such that Division I football seasons almost certainly pass GNG. GNG is the real measure that needs to be applied here. Cbl62 ( talk) 02:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Picking the most inclusive possible criterion misses the point. Meeting GNG is not enough if it fails WP:NOT (as it does in this case), or if it can more effectively be handled on some other page instead of having a separate page of its own (as brightly explained on WP:N). NSEASONS (although it might need minor improvements) is one of the few parts of NSPORTS which is actually helpful in figuring out whether something should really have a stand-alone article or if it would better be covered elsewhere. I wouldn't be opposed to having a summary of the team's history and major sporting achievements in its article, but thousands upon thousands of run-of-the-mill model, like this:
Year Run-of-the-mill football team

The Year Run-of-the-mill football team represented the University of Run-of-the-mill in the Year NCAA Division X sports season as a member of the Random College Conference (RCC). Led by Xth-year coach John Doe, the Run-of-the-mills compiled an overall record of A-B and a mark of X-Y in conference play, placing Nth in the RCC.

[insert schedule and results table here]

This is the basic format of almost every page in the appropriate subsection of Template:South Dakota Coyotes football navbox (even 2017 South Dakota Coyotes football team isn't that much different: the sole significant addition is a box-score for every single game (without any prose whatsoever), which is even more NOTSTATS than the basic table). And for thousands of other sports teams. I do not think this imparts much if any pertinent information to readers other than mere statistical minutiae (and, as a reader, statistical minutiae is not something I'd look for on Wikipedia - the various databases do their job well enough). It would be better if a way of combining those, either in the main team article, as I suggest above, or in some other grouping, would avoid having these as mere statistical dumps and encourage more thoughtful prose (including, if it exists, analysis from secondary sources and not just newspapers match reports). RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 02:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Typically, anti-sports editors complain that NSPORTS is way too inclusive and that our core notability policy at GNG should govern. .... but in this case, the topic clearly passes GNG and so the argument is made that meeting GNG is not enough because GNG is the "most inclusive possible criterion". Bottom line: some editors just don't like sports articles and want them deleted regardless of what our guidelines say. Cbl62 ( talk) 03:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Bottom-line, you've picked the most inclusive criterion that you think applies (since this clearly fails NSEASONS, then you're trying to argue that it meets GNG, since finding a few routine newspapers reports and sowing enough doubt that they could actually pass off as SIGCOV is not that difficult to attempt), but you actually haven't even addressed the GNG issue (because all of the sources are still routine coverage), not the more fundamental NOT issues (which you have entirely sidestepped). RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 03:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Bottom line: GNG is clearly satisfied with SIGCOV in multiple, reliable and independent sources. NSEASONS (as discussed below), like all of NSPORTS, is an inclusive standard that does not override GNG. As for WP:NOT, you have not even articulated which prong of that guideline you think applies, so it's rather difficult to reply to a vague hand-wave. Cbl62 ( talk) 03:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
No, routine match coverage in local newspapers is not SIGCOV. We don't write articles based on obituaries (even if these do contain "significant coverage"). We don't write articles about local fire services if the only thing that can be said about them is a fill-in-the-blanks "X fire service is responsible for firefighting in Y area." We don't (or shouldn't) write articles about local team sport seasons if the only thing that can be said is as in the template I've provided above. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a sports database (which is what those articles are and are likely to remain) and not a collection of routine coverage of events of little to no long-term significance. See also [22]. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 17:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Feature articles are not routine.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 20:10, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I've expanded the article a bit with sources I was able to find, and there are now sixteen news sources in the article. This include coverage of every game and the team's notable achievements, as one of its players broke school and conference rushing records. There's also this article and this article, which aren't cited because I couldn't find a place for them in the current version of the article; both could be used to expand the article in the future. I'd say the article easily passes WP:GNG with those sources. As for WP:NSEASONS, that guidance hasn't reflected either community standards or known source coverage of college football in quite some time; the reality is that most seasons on teams in Division I, and even a handful on lower-division teams, will have enough coverage to pass GNG. TheCatalyst31 Reaction• Creation 02:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Passes WP:GNG per the sourcing efforts of TheCatalyst31. While South Dakota was then a Division II team, it has been promoted to Division I which enhances the notability of the program and its history. Cbl62 ( talk) 03:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    WTF? Notability is not inherent, nor inherited, nor based on some sense of what is historically "significant" or not. I'm not even sure the two sentence statistical mentions are more than NOTSTATS and NOTNEWS stuff: these could probably be covered on some other, more relevant page (if it exists, I don't know, List of NCAA football records, or maybe even on South Dakota Coyotes football team - I'm sure if you combined all the non-trivial prose from all of the seasons article, you'd have plenty enough to write a decent section, and it probably wouldn't even be too much). The other sources are still routine match reports. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 03:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Despite the vast improvement of this article to the point that it will soon be approaching GA status, it's clear you're unwilling to maintain an open mind and will stubbornly insist that every in-depth piece of SIGCOV that is added to the article is simply "routine" coverage. Rather than continuing to reply here, I'll just continue to improve the article. Best, Cbl62 ( talk) 18:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
No, this is a fundamental disagreement over what Wikipedia is and should be. How you're going about, you seem to think it should cover every event which happens to get mentioned somewhere in newspapers (yes, the local newspapers reporting on yesterday's football game is "routine", and there are thousands of such games every single year played by hundreds if not similarly thousands of different teams. Should we really have an article about each one of those teams providing details about each one of their routine games? I'll remind you we don't have that even for pro teams, much less for university teams anywhere but in the US...), acting as some form of sports pseudo-database or the like. This is probably not the place to fully expound upon why it shouldn't. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 19:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Well, two points on that. One, college football in the United States should probably be understood as semi-professional. It can't really be compared to any other university sport with the possible exception of college basketball. Two, we do, in fact, have such articles about professional teams. See for example 2021 Kansas City Chiefs season. Mackensen (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
An AFD for one article is not the place for a discussion on "a fundamental disagreement over what Wikipedia is and should be" -- Paul McDonald ( talk) 20:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • @ RandomCanadian: Just so you know, nobody here (certainly not me) is suggesting that every college football season should have a stand-alone article. It's my general view that season articles should be restricted to Division I programs. There are some exceptions, however, where the coverage warrants stand-alone treatment. The four Dakota universities are among those exceptions, and in part based on the extensive coverage and following, all four of the Dakota universities have now been promoted to Division I. Cbl62 ( talk) 20:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Cleary passes GNG per cited sources. Jweiss11 ( talk) 03:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. As noted above, WP:NSEASONS doesn't reflect current practice. To the degree that subject notability guidelines are descriptive rather than prescriptive. this represents a problem best addressed at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports), not here. A season article is a useful way of grouping information that otherwise belongs (potentially) in at least two places: the main article about the football team (which we all agree is notable), and, in ascending article, the main article about the conference during that season, or potentially the whole division. It could also be a useful container for information that would otherwise be located in articles about the head coach or some of the assistants, and also individual players. Most of these topics are presumptively notable. Breaking out that information into an individual season article doesn't change that. That the article started bare-bones doesn't signify; many articles start with a bare-bones structure, with the easy part done first. Mackensen (talk) 18:10, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep sources in the article pass WP:GNG. I understand the nominator disagrees with that position. I leave it to the closer to determine.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 19:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep now that more referencing has been added and the prose has been built out. I still don't hate the idea of seasons such as this being rolled into an over article of a program's history. I also think that this nomination is far more WP:POINTY than moving the draft to the main space. GPL93 ( talk) 19:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This article, while it may be a less than run of the mill season for a D2 school, is pretty well sourced with independent, reliable publications (some of which may be routine, but I think it still passes WP:GNG.) I will concede that there is a slight aspect of WP:FANCRUFT to the article, but it doesn't rise to the level of deletion. Spf121188 ( talk) 20:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, it passes WP:GNG, as what other users said. Severe storm 28 22:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Meets WP:GNG, per all above. Definitely a WP:POINTY nomination here. Ejgreen77 ( talk) 05:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per TheCatalyst's improvements and others above. PCN02WPS ( talk | contribs) 06:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Clearly meets GNG with sufficient sources, and a decent rewrite as well. ~ EDDY ( talk/ contribs)~ 13:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep passes GNG, pointy nomination. LEPRICAVARK ( talk) 19:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I think it's starting to snow here. Spf121188 ( talk) 19:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_January_21&oldid=1069120115"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 20 January 22 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Ajpolino ( talk) 23:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Skid mount

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

A dictionary definition, unsourced for a decade. This is certainly a real thing, but it doesn't seem particularly notable. Beeblebrox ( talk) 00:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply

I think we should keep it or least merge its content into Pallet as it is part of that whole transportaion system Back ache ( talk) 09:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, passes WP:GNG based on significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

References

  1. ^ Kang, S.; Kim, H.; Kim, J.; Kim, H.; Jang, J.; Kwak, B.; Choi, K.; Jang, H. (2021). "Transient Structural Analysis of a Skid Mounted on a Hydrogen Tube Trailer under Shock and Vibration Induced by Road Irregularities" (pdf). Applied Sciences. 11 (9): 3779.
  2. ^ Polivka, K.A.; Faller, R.K.; Rohde, J.R.; Holloway, J.C; Sicking, D.L. (1999). Compliance Testing of Iowa’s Skid-Mounted Sign Device (Report). Mid-America Transportation Center.
  3. ^ World Batch Forum (2011). Walt Boyes (ed.). ISA 88 and ISA 95 in the Life Science Industries. Momentum Press. pp. 50–51. ISBN  9781606502037.
  4. ^ Heinz P. Bloch; Fred K. Geitner (2004). Machinery Component Maintenance and Repair. Elsevier Science. pp. 75–76.
  5. ^ E. Goldberg (2012). Handbook of Downstream Processing. Springer Netherlands. p. 682. ISBN  9789400915633.

SailingInABathTub ( talk) 15:49, 8 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Getting google books results for anytime the words "skid mount" are used in any context does not demonstrate WP:SIGCOV. These are mostly brief mentions of the fact that a skid mount was used, except for the first one, which appears to be about something else entirely, and the second one, which is a paper about a specific skid-mounted device, fine for verifiability, but not notability. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC) reply
#1 is a paper on the structural analysis of a skid mount, used to transport hydrogen tubes, #2 is a technical report on the safety of a skid mounted road sign - an application not currently in the article. #3, #4, & #6 each have several paragraphs describing the general principle of a skid mount which could be used as references for the first paragraph of this article. SailingInABathTub ( talk) 03:26, 11 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 02:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • "Weak keep': This is not my area of expertise and a lot of what I found on Google Books, etc., was either paywalled or about the skid and not the mount, but the sources cited above seem to at least provide coverage beyond a dictionary definition. Gnomingstuff ( talk) 22:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep, Notable commonly used concept - passes WP:GNG, I did a quick search on Google Scholar and three hundred or so articles discuss it (and its more an industry concept rather than scientific/arts/legal, so that isn't the best place to look), but from the context, its a common enough concept. Searching Proquest journals, gives 299 hits on the phrase, with a lot of mentions of the concept being used in industry/ trade journals. Deathlibrarian ( talk) 03:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, It is a way of storing and per above meets WP:GNG, Alex-h ( talk) 17:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Deathlibrarian and SailingInABathTub. Heartmusic678 ( talk) 11:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Sunrise English Private School

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

No RS coverage ( https://www.google.com/search?q=sunrise+english+private+school&oq=sunrise+english+private+school&aqs=edge..69i57.6416j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 ) shows only the school's website and social media profile (and one website that lists different schools). And ( https://www.google.com/search?q=sunrise+english+private+school&source=lmns&tbm=nws&hl=en-US&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiv2ZmB9pn1AhWXj9gFHfXLCxwQ_AUoAnoECAEQAg ) searching for news articles only shows passing mentions and minor coverage. Tube· of· Light 05:57, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

....which is not a DELREASON, since they describe the school. FOARP ( talk) 11:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete due to the lack of in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. The only thing that might work for notability is the article provided by FOARP about uniform fees, but even there most of the article is quotes from parents The Abu Dhabi Education Council. There's zero analysis of the subject by the author of the article though. Which mans it can't be used for notability. In the meantime, Wikipedia isn't a news outlet. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 01:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Uniform fees and bullying at a school are run-of-the-mill WP:MILL and don't make the school notable. BBQboffin ( talk) 04:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, Article does not pass notability. Alex-h ( talk) 17:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. This discussion has had lower participation than is ideal, but after a full month, I think it's time to close this. Consider this a mildly "weak keep", but let's move forward. Ajpolino ( talk) 04:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Campus Front of India

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

Fails WP:GROUP there seems to be no reliable indepth coverage of the organization itself. ChunnuBhai ( talk) 10:38, 29 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep But this should be noted that this is the student wing of Radical [1] Islamist [2], Popular Front Of India. They are educated but violent Assault on T. J. Joseph, and the PFI article was permanently protected due to vandalism and COI editing by PFI activists. I can guarantee that Campus Front of India members will regularly visit their organization page and try to remove negative sourced content. Their SDPI page has fewer visitors. See Death of Abhimanyu. Knight Skywalker ( talk) 04:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Even currently the first line is written by using websites that have a bias in favor of them. Knight Skywalker ( talk) 13:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep The article has multiple links to Hindustan Times, Times of India, Deccan Herald and other RS that provide substantial coverage. Passes GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • The page creator is COI editor. Currently inactive. Tenpointer1 uploaded an image of boys claiming to be CFI members. The article's contents made with primary sources, unreliable websites should be removed. Knight Skywalker ( talk) 05:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Meddle. ✗ plicit 11:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Meddle Tour

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

Not a notable tour. I can find sources for all the shows, but the article does not satisfy WP:NOTESAL. This is just one of many US tours Pink Floyd did during this stage of their career. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:01, 4 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 13:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Ajpolino ( talk) 23:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Carlos St. James

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

Subject does not meet requirements of notability IvanMilsbein ( talk) 15:41, 14 January 2022 (UTC) Page appears to be self-promotion and resume content. Refer to criteria for determining whether person is notable here: [ [1]] IvanMilsbein ( talk) 16:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Likely a promotional article. None of the reliable sourcing appears to be significant coverage that is actually about the subject. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 16:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Oaktree b ( talk) 20:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom fails WP:GNG. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 21:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:09, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply

High House Gardens, Congham

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

Firstly , Notability. The only source of any solidity is Pevsner; one line on the house, nothing on the garden. Secondly, this is a lump of the kind of promotional flannel that the owners of 'hospitality venues' create so that gullible would-be clients are bamboozled by the fact that there is a Wikipedia article. TheLongTone ( talk) 17:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC) reply

And thirdly the article has nothing about the garden in it; it consisted of a lot of guff (to use the technical term) about the rich people who lived there. I've removed it, of course TheLongTone ( talk) 17:52, 4 January 2022 (UTC) reply
And fourthly the editor is (I assume) being paid to create this dreck. I've AfD'd (sucessfully) od of their cratios, & will be looving at the rest. TheLongTone ( talk) 18:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    Comment, I think we should assume good faith towards Maypm, who created this article. If you look at their editing pattern, yes, they have created articles about two historical properties in Norfolk that have become wedding venues, but they have also created or worked on a variety of other articles, mostly about historical buildings. It is extremely common for such buildings to be used as wedding venues. Practically every house in Norfolk more than 100 years old and equipped with a garden big enough for a marquee is available to hire for your wedding if you want! If Maypm just happens to live in Norfolk and like writing about his/her local historical houses, they're doomed to writing about wedding venues, without this meaning that they are being WP:PAID. TheLongTone, if you think Maypm is being paid, the place to deal with it is probably an administrators' noticeboard, not AfD, but I don't think it'll hold much traction. Some of their other articles, for example Reymerston Hall, Norfolk are quite well balanced and historically informative. In general, the current commercial use of a property shouldn't count against its notability. Having said all that (and sorry about the rant!) there appears to be nothing useful to say about High House Gardens, Congham, so delete is reasonable. Elemimele ( talk) 19:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC) reply
I do assume good faith, but having looked at a couple of the editors other contribution I remain very doubtful. I cannot imagine why anybody should create an article ostensibly about a garden which in fact consists entirely of eyewateringly dull biographical details of the now demolished house's owners. TheLongTone ( talk) 13:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply
and I (sort of) apologise for removing all the references bar one; not intentional, but the baby went with the bathwater. TheLongTone ( talk) 13:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Mmm, been doing some thinking. Looking at the original article, before you trimmed it, TheLongTone, you are quite correct that it was about the house, not so much the garden. My personal guess is that the article's creator was either driving past, or attended a function at the garden, and is the sort of person who finds local history fascinating, so they got to work. There are two ways to handle this; one would be to restore the information about the house and its history, and rename (move) the article to Congham High House. But to do this, we'd have to be certain that the house and its history are notable, and that the article isn't original research. My feeling is that the house would be only borderline, and that the article was supported more by primary sources than secondary, so it does stray into the territory of writing that should be published as local history, not as encyclopaedia content. So I do still think (sadly) that delete might be the better option. I am sorry I got so grumpy yesterday! Elemimele ( talk) 17:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 13:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

As a dedicated curmudgeon I noticed no grumpiness. My doubts about the author of these articles remains. Most of the content is dull beyond belief. TheLongTone ( talk) 14:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete no evidence of significant coverage of the garden in reliable, independent sources. No opinion on whether the house may be notable. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:00, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete My search only generated brief mentions in publications such as the Journal of the Royal Horticultural Society of London and Gardener's Chronicle. I would have voted to merge to Congham, but it is already mentioned on the page. Heartmusic678 ( talk) 11:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The keep side's arguments remain superficial, while the delete side addresses the number and quality of sources. Sandstein 16:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Gabriel Hall

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

Individual is only arguably notable for the murder. My best understanding is that Wikipedia does not document every murder, and it does not seem as though this murder was notable outside of the short-term news cycle. Whadup, it's ya girl, Dusa ( talk) 05:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC) reply

@ WhisperToMe:
  • Keep - The reason why I decided this was a notable incident was because of Wikipedia:Notability_(events)#Geographical_scope which states: "Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group." This was because of media interest in the case from the Philippines, Hall's home country. WhisperToMe ( talk) 02:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: regarding Whisper's quote, Gabriel Hall does not seem to have had significant impact in the Philippines. I'd say no impact whatsoever, given that he resided, was charged and convicted in another country. Is there even any WP:IMPACT in the US? Geschichte ( talk) 14:41, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply
      • @ Geschichte: I'm unsure myself; I saw Whisper say this much, but I never saw any clarification. As far as impact in the US, I don't recall seeing anything that may indicate relevance in the US. - Whadup, it's ya girl, Dusa ( talk) 18:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 15:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep, for the reasons of editor who want to keep this article. Person is quite infamous as well. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 01:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The article is notable and had some media coverage throughout the years and the case is pretty notable so I say keep. Article has reliable sources and has correct info. HelpingWorld ( talk) 20:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Administrator Comment I have relisted this, because while we are at a numerical keep, the article is notable article has reliable sources person is quite infamous are not in alignment with the notability guidelines and suggest futher !votes take policy into account. Star Mississippi 23:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I was just passing through (to fix a delsort above) but after reading the article, this is a WP:BLP1E with only local sources... I'm not seeing how the WP:PERP or crime is "unusual" or what Phillipines-based coverage it has. The GMA articles are sourced from the Filipino Reporter (a now-usurped spam domain) leaving only the Freeman article as evidence of wider notability. Am I missing something? czar 00:17, 23 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete On the one hand, it seems incredible to me that a murder and death-penalty case that involves such a hot-button issue as international adoption should not be notable. On the other hand, the article's sources show only two or maybe three sources that meet the usual notability requirements. The arguments for "keep" above do not, unfortunately, contradict this evaluation. The gripping hand therefore points to the lack of WP:SUSTAINED coverage as demonstrated by searches decisively favoring a lack of notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Was his brother on the Bachlorette? There's write up in the Hollywood Reporter about someone with his name. Oaktree b ( talk) 20:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Comment I remember he had a sister (cited in the article), but I don't know if he had a brother. WhisperToMe ( talk) 18:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I think another reason why I created the article is that around the execution typically press coverage increases, including in European countries, as lately death row inmates have become a cause celebre in countries without the death penalty. WhisperToMe ( talk) 18:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    But Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and until those sources exist, we have little to show for this event's lasting significance czar 18:47, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 11:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Amber Lily

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

Advertorialized WP:BLP of an singer, not properly referenced as passing our inclusion criteria for singers. The notability claims here are that she was a non-winning competitor in a singing competition and otherwise just that her work exists, rather than any concrete evidence that she achived anything that would pass WP:NMUSIC -- and while the article also claims that she's an actress, it offers no indication whatsoever that she's ever done anything of note as an actress at all. And for sourcing, two of the six footnotes are to her own self-published website about herself and three more are of the "music metaverifying its own existence on Amazon.com" variety, which are not reliable or notability-building sources. And while there is one footnote to a real piece of media coverage here, it's a very short blurb nowhere near substantive enough to carry her over WP:GNG all by itself if it's the only acceptable source in the mix.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced considerably better than this. Bearcat ( talk) 22:30, 14 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect to National Library of Finland. History will be left to facilitate a merge if desired, as some editors expressed interest in this. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply

KANTO – National Agent Data

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

No evidence of notability found for this. Can perhaps be redirected to National Library of Finland if people think that is useful? Otherwise deletion seems best. Fram ( talk) 17:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply

The KANTO – National Agent Data page was requested so I do not understand why you would immediately need to delete it. Deletion does not seem appropriate for the moment. This page is important giving additional background information to the Wikidata item KANTO (Q104089764) and the wikidata property KANTO ID (P8980). On the page tHere are links to external pages providing addtional information which was not copied to Wikipedia. If additional content is required it is possible to do. Please, end the deletion process and approve the page. Saarik ( talk) 17:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Requested by whom? AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 19:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply
it was an anonymous request Saarik ( talk) 09:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC) reply

There is a true need for the Finnish KANTO page, since it is an authority ID that is widely used on pages of Finnish publishers (see, for instance Erik_Allardt in Finnish (Suomi)). It would seem appropriate to have a similar item in English especially because there are people in Finland whose Finnish is not as good as their English. ( Reetakuu)

  • Redirect Based on a rather brief an informal search for sources (the name makes this difficult to search for, as it has more common meanings in both English and Finnish), I don't think this is going to pass WP:GNG. I'd suggest merging this into National Library of Finland for now. Note how many other authority files e.g. in Authority control#Examples also simply link to libraries. Later, if sufficient independent coverage materializes, a dedicated article might then be split off. I'd be happy to change my !vote to keep, though, if someone can point out independent coverage. - Ljleppan ( talk) 08:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The Kanto page is very similar in status and content as the corresponding database page of the German National library Integrated Authority File which was used as an example in creation of the Kanto page. If that page is ok, then the Kanto page should be, too. That page has existed since 2012 and is not much longer, either.
If similarities of the name is an issue, the title could be finaf which is the official code name for KANTO registered by LOC similar to "gnd" for the Gemeinsame Normdatei. If deletion is still supported, this content should be included in the National library page, and then a redirect added Saarik ( talk) 09:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC) reply
" Other stuff exists" does not hold much weight in AfD discussions: there's plenty of content in Wikipedia and some is bound to be less than stellar. For GND in specific, I completely agree that the en-wiki page is far from great. The de-wiki page de:Gemeinsame Normdatei has a lot more references, even if it too seems to be lacking in the independent-coverage department. - Ljleppan ( talk) 09:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC) reply
wow, this is really amazing. How can you even require to have many references to a new page which is just created??? The gemeimsame Normdate page has existed almost 10 years so of course it has references. Saarik ( talk) 07:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC) reply
you seem to misunderstand. A page should not even be created unless there are 3rd party references to the subject of the page. We're not alking about references to the page itself, but the subject. When it doesn't, the material is best included in an existing article,and there's a good one for the purpose. DGG ( talk ) 00:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: pinging DGG, since you're an librarian by profession and you know the true value of an authority file. Your assessment/opinion/vote will have a weightage over here. - Hatchens ( talk) 16:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

The other possibility, which could be pursued atmthe sametime, is to turn the list of national authority lists into a combination article. There will be the same problem in trying to make articles on most of them.

DGG ( talk ) 07:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Comment I did a slightly more comprehensive search of Finnish language academic resources than in my original comment above, and there are a few Finnish language publications that have passing mentions of KANTO, e.g. [3] [4]. But these are indeed very passing. The first one states that they used KANTO data in constructing another thing, and the second has a passing mention that translates along the lines of "Work on ontologies has continued in the National Library of Finland. For example, Finto's new KANTO ontology covers the authoritative names of the agents relating to materiel published in Finland, produced during the description of the national bibliography, including the authors of musical materiel" (the original Finnish sentence is either extremely confusing or has some mistake in it, I can't quite tell). A general list of national authority files sounds reasonable, so I'd also be happy with that as an alternative. - Ljleppan ( talk) 10:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to National Library of Finland; it's an aspect of their work, and independent notability is not at all apparent. Sandstein 06:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ https://theprint.in/india/popular-front-of-india-radical-outfit-with-simi-links-now-under-caa-protests-scanner/340196/
  2. ^ https://www.deccanherald.com/national/atmakur-violence-sdpi-pfi-activities-under-probe-in-andhra-pradesh-1070568.html
  3. ^ Hyvönen, Eero, et al. "Parlamenttisampo: eduskunnan aineistojen linkitetyn avoimen datan palvelu ja sen käyttömahdollisuudet." Informaatiotutkimus 40.3 (2021): 216-244.
  4. ^ Hyvönen, Eero. "Sammon taontaa semanttisessa webissä (Forging Sampos on the Semantic Web)." Tekniikan Waiheita (2021).
  • Merge to National Library of Finland, per nominator's rarionale and DGG. Not enough GNG coverage for a standalone article, per Ljleppan, but worth keeping given the state of the National Library of Finland page. Pilaz ( talk) 04:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Dronacharya Group of Institutions, Greater Noida

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

Contested WP:PROD. No clear significance, minimal sourcing. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 23:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 00:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Robert Mellors

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

The only reference in this article is to the award of an OBE to this person. I have added a publication but cannot find any additional reliable coverage to include. Tacyarg ( talk) 22:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Magna Carta Cartel

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

They are a real band quite alright but a before search shows they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them thus GNG isn’t met. Furthermore WP:NBAND isn’t met also. Following the before search all I can see are vendor, self published & user generated sources. Celestina007 ( talk) 21:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Cheetah News

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

Fails WP:GNG due to inadequate secondary sources. Also conflicts with WP:NOTGUIDE Headphase ( talk) 21:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

RAM Europe

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

Speedy was declined and I somewhat expect the PROD to be challenged, so saving this step. Sole source is a PDF authored by someone with the last name that matches the article creator's. While I don't think this is necessarily UPE, other of the article creator's works have been found not to be notable and I don't find any indication that this subject is. No evidence found via BEFORE to establish notability, and no Greek article found to draw from. Star Mississippi 20:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Andy Le

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

Early stage character bit-part actor. References are mostly promotional PR, profiles and interviews that are primary. scope_creep Talk 18:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - It is WP:TOOSOON for this emerging martial arts actor who is at the beginning stages of his career. Perhaps in the future, after he achieves notability in the way of significant coverage in reliable sources, wins some awards, etc. he will be ready for an article. When I saw the L.A. Times citation I was hopeful, but it consisted of a very brief mention and name check in photo captions which is not enough to pass WP criteria for WP:NACTOR. The other citations consist of a couple interviews, which as mentioned in the nom, are primary sources that don't contribute to notability; simple mentions that he is in the cast; or don't mention him at all, therefore, he also does not pass WP:GNG. Perhaps this can be revisited in a few more years after he is more established as an actor. Netherzone ( talk) 17:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone ( talk) 17:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is clearly an overly promotional article. This guy is not a "star" in Chang-shi, he is a basically forgettable bit part actor. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete It could be a case of WP:TOOSOON but it doesn't look like he's had any significant roles. BuySomeApples ( talk) 03:50, 27 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete My search didn't find anything to show he's notable as a martial artist or actor. I also don't see evidence that WP:GNG is met. Claims of starring in all those movies is clear exaggeration when you look at descriptions of the movies and their casts. Papaursa ( talk) 04:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to ICC Awards#Monthly awards. Redirects are cheap, otherwise this would be a delete. Tone 20:03, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

ICC Player of the Month

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

No evidence that this award is meaningful or at all notable enough to pass WP:GNG- every source in the article is a primary source (as the ICC is the one handing out the awards) Joseph 2302 ( talk) 18:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect to Optica (society)#Primary journals. Tone 20:03, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Optics Continuum

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

Article PRODed with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODed by creator with reason "Optics Continuum is a revamped version of OSA's OSA Continuum journal. This allows to broaden the research span of the journal along with serving multiple disciplines of the research. Since it was just launched in Jan 2022, it might be few months to be included in Scopus and Clarivate databases. I will keep a close watch on the database and journal's notability. However, I think we should give it due time before decision of deletion. Thank you! :-)" However, beside the fact that Scopus and Clarivate will treat this as a journal that only just started (so that indexing is likely quite q while away), this journal is included in not a single database (selective or not) and (not very surprising) there are no in-depth sources that meet the requirements of GNG. PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty ( talk) 18:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Lucas Oswald

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

Cannot find any RS or SIGCOV that cover Oswald or his career, only self-published promotional material. Does not appear to WP:NSINGER as all of his success seems to have been garnered as part of bands. – DarkGlow • 18:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Paris Visone

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

References are primary interviews. Fails WP:BLPPRIMARY, WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep Talk 18:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. The reason I have not redirected it, despite generally doing so, is it's not mentioned at the target and is therefore of no help to the reader. No objection to a redirect being created should English-language content be added. Star Mississippi 01:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Plyverse

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

Non-notable. Mess. scope_creep Talk 17:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - Almost incomprehensible. The article seems, on machine-translating the references, to be about a fictional universe, but does not consistently describe it as fiction, and is poorly organized.
  • An article should speak for itself as to why its subject matter is notable without the need for a reader to read the references. After all, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to contain information, not merely to be links to verifying information. This article does not speak for itself, because it is almost incomprehensible, but a review of the references shows that they mostly appear to be advertising the fiction and the fictional universe.
Number Reference Remarks Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 SportsSeoul Mention of a contest for art for the subject fictional universe. No Yes No
2 Osen.mt.co.kr Discussion of a publicity poster No No No
3 Joynews24.com Interview with a promoter No Yes No
4 zdnet.co.kr Interview about the subject No Yes No
5 Donga.com A teaser about the subject No Yes No
6 Playliststudio.kr A map of the fictional place - Their own web site No Yes Only in-universe No
7 Playliststudio.kr More information about the fictional place - Their own web site No Yes Only in-universe No
8 Osen.mt.co.kr More information about the fictional place No Yes No
9 YouTube No No
10 Playliststudio.kr More information about the fictional place - Their own web site No Only in-universe No
11 Donga.com Information about marketing the fictional place and shows about it Yes Yes No
12 Playliststudio.kr Advertising on own web site for REVAN company, which may be in the fictional universe No No No
13 Playliststudio.kr Advertising on own web site for Re.Feel company, which may be in the fictional universe No No No
14 Joynews24.com Another promotional interview No No
  • An article that can only be understood by machine-translating the references, and then does not establish general notability, can be deleted safely. There probably is an article about Playlist, the Korean production company, that can be written in an objective encyclopedic fashion; but this is not it.

Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • with regards to ref 9, it is an episode, supporting the fact that the actress appeared in one of the television series that the fictional universe is set in (the video is loaded with the timestamp of one of her appearances). – robertsky ( talk) 22:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. ✗ plicit 01:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Sdala B

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

Unable to find sources indicating a pass of WP:GNG, WP:NBIO or WP:NCREATIVE WP:MUSICBIO, likely not notable. ASUKITE 16:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Note I've nominated the article for CSD G5 as the creator was blocked. (See here.) If an admin agrees and deletes it, this can be procedurally closed. ASUKITE 20:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deletion. — Cryptic 02:31, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Mizanur Rahman (cricket umpire)

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

Fails WP:NCRIC. Ts12rAc talk to me 16:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Michig ( talk) 18:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

The Bombay Tribune

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

Hoax? I first draftified this to give the editor a chance to make clear what it is about, but they put it back with minimal improvements, and I still can't find out what they really try to describe here. There is very little evidence for any Bombay Tribune, never mind one that is "market leaders in terms of circulation", even though it is only a supplement: "Bombay Tribune[1] is a free supplement of The Bombay Tribune". Fram ( talk) 15:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 15:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 15:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete While there are claims for notability, none of the citations provided support the claims made. This is a borderline hoax as Fram describes. Chris Troutman ( talk) 18:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The editor added certain 'warnings' to the page (i.e. citations/references) that date back to September of 2010, while the article was created yesterday. The website is locked and I am unable to access this. Can anyone else confirm that it is blocked for them? Fakescientist8000 ( talk) 18:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and salt. This website was created a month ago (see archive.org and their Twitter posts). The first version of this article was speedily deleted in December, the week the website appears to have been created. Politanvm talk 18:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Subject doesn't meet the notability. -- E.Im anoff Snatch 20:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC) — E.Imanoff ( talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Elshadiman ( talk · contribs). reply
  • Delete: Hoax. Reminded me of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Delhi Times (newspaper), another hoax of a similar type that is now at AfD. Java Hurricane 10:53, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Fails GNG. The site's footer section still has a lot of "Sample page" from website's template. - SUN EYE 1 16:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: as per nom. and all above. - Hatchens ( talk) 15:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • delete the name "bombay tribune" feels oddly familiar. I think there was a newspaper by that name in historical days, but I also think it was closed in the historical days. This seems to be just another product/organisation trying to piggyback the original brand name. This happens a lot in India. But we should document this somewhere in case of someone else recreates the article. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 04:39, 27 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 20:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Rizi Timane

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

Refs are either primary, SPS, shops or non-RS. Fails WP:BIO, WP:ANYBIO. scope_creep Talk 15:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was merge to Plandome Manor, New York#Parks and recreation. Star Mississippi 01:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Plandome Country Club

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

Fails NCORP. Generic brochure article. scope_creep Talk 14:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Anil Kishore Yadav

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

Fails WP:BIO. Non-notable police officer. scope_creep Talk 14:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

2022 Supercoppa Italiana (women)

2022 Supercoppa Italiana (women) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

We don't know the participating teams yet nor the dates of the matches. The article is also unsourced Dr Salvus 14:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect to Clifton, Michigan. The content is under the re-direct if someone wishes to merge sourced information to the target. Star Mississippi 01:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Cliff, Michigan

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

Non-notable place. Fails WP:GEO and WP:V. What is a "viable place"? Nothing found when searching for more sources. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • It appears that this source [4] is about the mine that gave the place its name. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Rename to Cliff Mine (Michigan). The source I linked to above states "is the first successful mine in the Michigan Copper District and dates from 1845." The mine appears to be notable, but the place is just whatever residents grew up just around the mine. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • This source [5] suggests the mine is in Phoenix, Michigan. That apparently is an unincorporated place in the county. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    • I will need to see if I can find more sources. The two places may have been the same, and people may have used different names for the same mine. It is also less than clear that Phoenix, Michigan is still a place. It may be miscategorized as such, and maybe should be recategorized to the former populated places category. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • This is a YouTube video from the County convention and visitor beaureau on the place. Not by any stetch a reliable source, let alone indepdent, but it shows we are dealing with something. [6]. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Phoenix, Michigan for the time being. We need better sourcing to sort this out. I know people have written books about Michigan's copper country. I have no idea if they would add better sourcing on this place. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Clifton, Michigan. My searching in google books suggests that this is the actual place where the mine was at, and we have a better sourced article on that place. Phoenix, Michigan may in turn be another name for the place. Someone would probably want to look at the sourcing more to figure this out. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    • google books here [7] suggests there are two books that mention the mine in the title. There are other books on Michigan copper country that might say something about this place, especially if this was in fact the first successful mine. Even though I live in Michigan, I have never even been to the UP, let alone Copper Country, so I do not have a good sense of the spacial issues involved in the place. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • I found this book published by Wayne State University Press in 1991. In the intriduction (thus the part written by a modern scholar, and thus a secondary not a primary source) it explicitly states that Clifton was also know as "Cliff". [8]. So we have sourcing that This is an alternate name for Cliff. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Clifton, Michigan as an alternate, informal name. I don't really see any meaningful content worthy to be merged. Clifton, Michigan needs serious improvements and footnotes, btw. Cavarrone 10:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Clifton, Michigan. The book Michigan Place Names (Romig 1986) has two separate listings for Cliff and Clifton. For Cliff, it states, "Keweenaw County; the village grew up around the Cliff Mine founded by the Pittsburg & Boston Company in 1844; named by John Hayes, a Pittsburg pharmacist turned prospector, from its location below a high bluff; one of the most profitable of copper mines, it was sold to the Cliff Mining Company in 1871, who in turn sold it to the Tamarack Mining Company in 1880; now the mine a ruin and its village a ghost town." For Clifton, it states, "Keweenaw County; the Clifton Mine (copper) was opened in 1852; the North American Mine post office was transferred to and renamed Clifton on Feb. 24, 1853... the Clifton Mine was closed in 1855 but the Clifton post office operated until Dec. 3, 1884." My only other source on the matter Michigan Ghost Towns (Dodge 1973) lists both communities, but for Cliff, it merely reads, "Cliff—See Clifton" and right below that has several paragraphs for Clifton. It sounds like they might have been separate but very similar communities. However, Cliff doesn't appear to have any useful information available, while Clifton has more information for its own article. — Notorious4life ( talk) 04:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Closed early per WP:SKCRIT #2b. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Conners Creek, Michigan

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

Non-notable place failing WP:GEO. The only source is a discussion forum! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. You mean WP:NGEO? Keeping or deleting isn't decided on what's in the article, but on what's available. It was a recognized township, dsecribed as such in gazetteers [9]. It should be moved to Conner's Creek though, as that is the more common form of the name. Anyway, it (and the convoluted history of its name) has a long entry here, making it clear that it had at one time more than two thousand inhabitants. Fram ( talk) 13:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The nomination is incorrect. The one thing listed under sources is not a discussion forum. It is a book that has entries on basically every place in Michigan, with an emphasis on the origin of the name, but it does tell a little about their history. I may have over relided on it as a reliable source that could establish notability, but it is a published book, not a discussion forum. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The additional source found by Fram clearly shows notability. I added information based on that source throughout the article with clear references. It is also interesting to me that the nominator failed to notify me of the deletion disucssion even though I was the article creator. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep: For someone as ready as Lugnuts to howl WP:BEFORE! at the drop of a byte, he doesn't seem to have exerted himself much on this pointy AfD ... and this really isn't a good look for someone who's Wikipedia's champion for creating SIGCOV-less sub-stubs, to the point that he was recently community banned from stub creation for six months. Obvious sources are obvious. I'm comfortable with calling this a bad faith nomination. Ravenswing 14:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Lugnuts, is this related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gösta Grandin in any way shape, or form? I'm also quite comfortable saying that BEFORE was not provided here at all, given the matter of only a couple minutes since the prior AFD nomination by you. You are being clearly disruptive. Hog Farm Talk 15:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Since I live on the east side of Detroit, and have driven through this specific area extensively, I know the location where Gratiot Avenue crosses the now underground Conner Creek is about 3 miles from the area the sources seem to be identifying with the later use of this name. It may require digging up more sources, but it seems that the name sort of migrated northward, or it covered an area that was several miles along Gratiot. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Closed early per WP:SKCRIT #2b. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Duboisville, Michigan

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

Non-notable place. Fails WP:GEO and WP:V. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep but significantly improve. Has full paragraph here, which is clearly about the same town but contradicts quite a few facts from the other source, here. No idea how this fails WP:V though, not hard to find these sources. Fram ( talk) 13:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
See also e.g. here: while it is a self-published source, it again makes it clear that this was a true village, not just some named farm or so. Fram ( talk) 13:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
And here, calling it "once a trading center of importance". Fram ( talk) 13:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Finally here it is called an "old village". By all accounts meets WP:GEO and WP:V quite clearly. Fram ( talk) 13:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Fram has very clearly found sources that show notability. Assuming I correctly copied what Romig said on this place, he seems to not be a very reliable source. I am going to try to incorporate Fram's finds into the article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep: For someone as ready as Lugnuts to howl WP:BEFORE! at the drop of a byte, he doesn't seem to have exerted himself much on this pointy AfD ... and this really isn't a good look for someone who's Wikipedia's champion for creating SIGCOV-less sub-stubs, to the point that he was recently community banned from stub creation for six months. Obvious sources are obvious. I'm comfortable with calling this a bad faith nomination. Ravenswing 14:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Redirects are cheap, but there is no consensus for one here. Star Mississippi 01:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Gösta Grandin

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

The subject lacks WP:SIGCOV in multiple, reliable and independent sources and thus fails WP:GNG. The subject also fails WP:NOLYMPICS in that he did not win a medal. In this case, Grandin not only didn't medal -- he was actually disqualified from the event. See Athletics at the 1936 Summer Olympics – Men's 50 kilometres walk. Cbl62 ( talk) 13:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete olympic competitors are no longer considered to be default notable unless they were medalists. There are no sources here which would add at all to passing GNG. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Noise
The notion that I am a "proxy" for JPL is absurd. I've historically disagreed with JPL far more often than not at AfD. Indeed, just last year, I took JPL to ANI over his AfD nominations. This contention is pure smoke and mirrors to avoid focusing on an AfD that is clearly meritorious. Cbl62 ( talk) 13:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Rubbish. Lambert adds to his blog, sorry talkpage, about the notability of a subject, and then you send it to AfD. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Shame on you for making such baseless claims in desperate defense of your insupportable sub-stub. Cbl62 ( talk) 13:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The links above show that it is the case that I've stated. Unless, of course, you didn't post on Lambert's talkpage about this article and its AfD. Oh, wait. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Nope. JPL posted about another one of your insupportable Olympic sub-stubs which led me to Grandin which I independently reviewed and found to be sorely and completely lacking. ... Curious whether you have anything to say about the substance of the AfD. Cbl62 ( talk) 13:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Yes. The discussion with you on Lambert's talkpage show this. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Still no comment on the substance of the AfD? Any SIGCOV to present showing that Grandin passes GNG? Cbl62 ( talk) 13:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
You did absolutely nothing wrong here, JPL. This is pure strategy on the part of Lugnuts to try to divert the focus of the discussion. Cbl62 ( talk) 13:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Apart from get you to proxy AfD for him, yep nothing wrong at all! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
How in the world did JPL proxy me to AfD an article he never even mentioned??? Oh... and still no comment on the substance of the AfD? Still no SIGCOV to present showing that Grandin passes GNG? Cbl62 ( talk) 13:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The link to another user's comments above were when I posted an ask on that user's talk page to see if he would look into nominating an article for deletion. Which he did not. That is very different than someone seeing a notice on something that I posted to my talk page. Which is in turn different from someone seeing a notice on something on my talk page and then going to look even further into the matter on their own and finding other articles that they do not think are at all notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:10, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Athletics at the 1936 Summer Olympics – Men's 50 kilometres walk - no evidence of passing GNG presented, and it might as well redirect to the article for the sole Olympics event he participated in. Hog Farm Talk 15:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Do we really want redirects to people who were disqualified from the event? If we redirect every article that we have on a person who participated in the Olympics who does not meet notability guidelines, a category like Category:1912 births will end up being about a quarter redirects to various Olympic pages. At present only about 0.5% of that category consists of redirects. Actually it may be closer to 0.25%. It does not even average one redirect for every page of 200 articles in the category. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
      • Switching to delete per other comments; we shouldn't be mirroring Olympedia and those looking for this obscure figure will be better served at a site like that. Hog Farm Talk 17:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: I'm not seeing any SIGCOV either, and I agree with JPL that nearly a century on, it's an unlikely search term. Ravenswing 16:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NOLYMPICS. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Worth noting - a vote (such as this one) based solely on an assertion that an article does not meet a non-gng criteria never reflects sufficient wp:before consideration. GNG is always enough. -- 2603:7000:2143:8500:30CD:F863:CA5C:68FC ( talk) 19:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    • No, GNG is not always enough. There is a way to read GNG that would cause 100% of candidates for US house to pass it, and a very large percentage of candidates for state legislature, at least in states other than New Hampshire (New Hampshire has a very large legislature, I think the largest in the US, and yet it has about a 25th the size the population of California), to pass it. So there are clearly cases where theoretically passing GNG is not enough. Anyway no one here has claimed at all that there is any source that in any way would add towards this individual passing GNG, so it is a mute point. To be fair we have not yet done much analysis on what type of sources on non-medaling Olympians may or may not add towards passing GNG, this is in part because well over 50% of our articles on Olympians, at least among those before 1960, have only 1 source, and it is one of the sources here that we have ruled in no way can even be used to add towards passing GNG. Not one of the sources on this particular article would add towards passing GNG. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:58, 25 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Pfizer. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 ( HAPPY 2022) 13:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Anacor

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

I nominated this for deletion in 2000 due to what I saw as a lack of notability at the time and it was kept. Although the main crux of the keep votes came down to insulting me over the nomination, saying it must be notable because it it developed two FDA approved drugs, or similar WP:ILIKEIT and WP:INTERESTING arguments. No one that voted keep really discussed the sourcing except to provide a couple of extremely trivial ones that related to them being bought out by Pfizer and an article that has to do with a compound in one of their drugs that has nothing to do with them except for saying in the article that they came up with it. Both of which are extremely WP:MILL. As drug companies routinely create pharmaceutical compounds and get bought out by other drug companies. So, I'm re-nominating this in the hopes that a better consensus, based on an actual discussion about the companies notability or lack of it, can occur this time around. Hopefully without the insults and other nonsense that occurred in the last discussion.

Just to throw it out there, in the original AfD I suggested redirecting or merging this to Pfizer as an ATD. I still think that doing so is a good option compared to doing nothing. Since there is some coverage of the company, even if it's extremely trivial. I just don't think there is enough to justify a stand alone article though. So I'm fine with anyone voting merge or redirect if they think it's justified compared to deleting the article outright. Adamant1 ( talk) 02:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Shellwood: Do you happen to know why the "AfDs for this article" sidebox includes articles that have nothing to do with this one in it? -- Adamant1 ( talk) 03:59, 14 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. This should be one sentence in Pfizer, and it already is. Most of the information in this article is background that is already covered elsewhere and has nothing to do with the subject; what is left is routine information about an acquired company. FalconK ( talk) 22:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect to Pfizer, with merging of any information deemed absolutely necessary; nothing of value will be lost. BD2412 T 18:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Michig ( talk) 19:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Arnolds Krūkliņš

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

The subject lacks WP:SIGCOV in multiple, reliable and independent sources and thus fails WP:GNG. The subject also fails WP:NOLYMPICS in that he did not win a medal. In this case, Krūkliņš not only didn't medal -- he was disqualified from the event. See Athletics at the 1936 Summer Olympics – Men's 50 kilometres walk. Cbl62 ( talk) 12:50, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete We clearly established that those who compete in the Olymics are not default notable, only medalist are. We lack any reliable sources to show that this person is notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Noise
*Comment It's clear that Cbl62 is acting as a proxy for Lambert to log AfDs, due to Lambert's AfD restrictions, something that Lambert has been warned not to do very recently. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The notion that I am a "proxy" for JPL is absurd. I've historically disagreed with JPL far more often than not at AfD. Indeed, just last year, I took JPL to ANI over his AfD nominations. This contention is pure smoke and mirrors to avoid focusing on an AfD that is clearly meritorious. Cbl62 ( talk) 13:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Rubbish. Lambert adds to his blog, sorry talkpage, about the notability of a subject, and then you send it to AfD. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Shame on you for making such baseless claims in desperate defense of your insupportable sub-stub. Cbl62 ( talk) 13:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The links above show that it is the case that I've stated. Unless, of course, you didn't post on Lambert's talkpage about this article and its AfD. Oh, wait. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Nope. JPL posted about another one of your insupportable Olympic sub-stubs which led me to Krūkliņš which I independently reviewed and found to be sorely and completely lacking. ... Curious whether you have anything to say about the substance of the AfD. Cbl62 ( talk) 13:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Yes. The discussion with you on Lambert's talkpage show this. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Still no comment on the substance of the AfD? Any SIGCOV to present showing that Krūkliņš passes GNG? Cbl62 ( talk) 13:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Clearly the nom didn't do the basics and check the Latvian article. There's this and this for starters. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Are those sources reliable? the first one is substantial coverage, the second is not. 1 source does not amount to passing GNG, and that one source I am less than convinced is reliable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
      • I won't opine to keep a subject without any significant results, but I could note that the second source Latvijas Enciklopēdija looks to be a concise encyclopedia, which explains its brevity. Geschichte ( talk) 21:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I have expanded the article with added sources. He won multiple national championships, both in Latvia and in the USSR after it became a Soviet republic. Of the sources linked here by Lugnuts, the first is a sports site, showing continuing coverage in independent sources outside databases, and the second is a Latvian encyclopedia entry reproduced at lv:Ogres Centrālā bibliotēka (for some reason I can't see the archived version at Latvian Wikipedia, so I was glad to see that link that works for me). The Latvian Olympic Committee page on him (archived here; since the link is broken for me at least, and in order to use it as a reference, I junked the Wikidata external links template) is also a reliable source for his career, not only for his one Olympics appearance, and I added a local history reference that has details on what happened at the Olympics: he was one of three Latvians competing, they had been advanced automatically to the final, and his disqualification during the race was a surprise and was not explained. Curiously, that source has a varying death date for him, and the encyclopedia entry has a varying birth date; all other sources agree, so I merely left hidden notes in those references. I also left a hidden note on the 1941 occupation; depending on the date of his win, it could have been either the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. Yngvadottir ( talk) 03:20, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Hasn't won a medal at the Olympics. Unless the notability criteria has changed. GoodDay ( talk) 20:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    From WP:NSPORT: "Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted." BeanieFan11 ( talk) 21:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep, per expansion by Yngvadottir. I can't read Latvian but am willing to AGF that its SIGCOV. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 21:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Per Beanie. 2603:7000:2143:8500:30CD:F863:CA5C:68FC ( talk) 19:32, 23 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Reliable sources are present. Deb ( talk) 12:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:HEY, WP:BEFORE failure. Cavarrone 13:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Ajpolino ( talk) 23:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

BeyondGenderAgenda

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

It would appear to me that this is at best a laudable proposal that gained no traction, at worst a marketing ploy. OK, so looking this up, I found this on the Welt (German TV channel) website: "Das ist er offenbar nicht. Diversität wird in deutschen Unternehmen nach wie vor zu wenig gelebt, wie die bundesweite Initiative Beyond Gender Agenda urteil." Even with my rudimentary German, this jumped out at me as pretty obviously promotional, even before I saw www.welt.de/sponsored/ in the URL. Please also see https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:L%C3%B6schkandidaten/28._Dezember_2021#BeyondGenderAgenda_(gel%C3%B6scht)

Pete AU aka Shirt58 ( talk) 10:27, 14 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 12:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment: This is neither of the things suggested by the nom. But that's not an argument for keep - I actually think the standard here would be WP:NCORP, which is pretty hard to meet even for pretty notable-as-in-famous institutions. This is a DEI consulting company founded in 2020, so I kind of doubt it. The press section on their website is pretty comprehensive, if anyone wants to go through these sources: [10]. -- asilvering ( talk) 06:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Actually, I guess I should reframe this comment as a weak delete since I think it's pretty unlikely anyone is going to be able to build a keep argument. Have I gone through all of those sources to see if there's independent, significant coverage? No. Do I think anyone else will, and additionally then be able to make a case for keep out of what they find? Well... also no. -- asilvering ( talk) 06:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yikes, let's put this in the rearview mirror. Thanks all for your participation, and thanks to the folks who sorted out the SPI in the middle of this. Ajpolino ( talk) 23:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Yannis Assael

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

Recreation of an article that was deleted under AfD per WP:TOOSOON one year ago. The only change since then that I see is that he was on the Forbes 30 under 30, which we do not usually regard as contributing to notability (and indeed, which is often a sign that it is WP:TOOSOON). WP:BEFORE showed similar citation record as previously for WP:NPROF, and few other signs of notability. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 11:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per the sources provided in the first AFD. No new deletion rationale is presented in this nomination. Enough reliable sources have been provided to justify my keep vote. Birdsandwasps ( talk) 12:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC) — Birdsandwasps ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
    Er... The first AfD ended in a deletion. What notability criterion do you think the subject meets? Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 12:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    Oh sorry I had another look at the deletion page. Forbes provides strong notability in conjunction with the rest of the sources (top journals and mentions in several reputable publications). I will try to expand the article during the weekend. Regards Birdsandwasps ( talk) 12:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as WP:Too soon for a very high-citation field. Xxanthippe ( talk) 21:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC). reply
  • Note I included mentions straight from the Financial Times, BBC, the Observer and Science Magazine. Surely, these are more than enough to comply with notability within international press? Birdsandwasps ( talk) 13:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    If a source doesn't mention the subject (as most of the ones you mention do not), or only mentions them once (as does the FT), then it doesn't contribute much towards notability. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 13:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    BBC has shared a quote by the researchers, which links to the PDF version of the publication under their names. Financial Times and the Verge both mention Y.A., whilst Observer highlights Pythia too. I don't really see the problem here. Birdsandwasps ( talk) 13:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I voted delete in the previous discussion but in its current state the article should remain. Mightberightorwrong ( talk) 13:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC) — Mightberightorwrong ( talk reply
  • Keep Sources seem reliable enough. Of course the article needs to be expanded, but the person is notable. Glucken123 ( talk) 19:42, 23 January 2022 (UTC) reply
extended discussion with socks collapsed
  • @ Glucken123 and Mightberightorwrong: can you comment on what notability criterion you think the subject passes, based on which sources? Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 13:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Russ Woodroofe: With all due respect, but your main argument that most articles on LipNet don't mention Assael's name is factually untrue. Let's see; the FT article highlights his name as one of the two lead researchers behind the development of Pythia [1]. How often do you come across experimental AI algorithms that are able to restore ancient Greek texts in a matter of seconds? That's why there is also a Wiki article on Pythia. In regards to the BBC article [2] on LipNet, not only mentions his name but also provides a quote from both researchers: Machine lip-readers have enormous potential, with applications in improved hearing aids, silent dictation in public spaces, covert conversations, speech recognition in noisy environments, biometric identification and silent-movie processing, wrote the researchers." That hyperlinked article is the PDF version of the pre-print publication, where Assael is evidently the lead author. I agree with your previous edit to remove Arxiv publications, but don't you agree that there is certainly some notability here? LipNet received national coverage in 2016 ( a simple Google search is always a good idea). I also agree that the article lacked notability in its previous state however even users who participated in the previous deletion proposal, voted against deleting it this time. The latest version is full of references that should do the trick. I hope my response was suitably diplomatic 😌 Glucken123 ( talk) 16:00, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Glucken123: it sounds like you are arguing that Assael meets WP:BASIC notability. (Well, with a side of WP:ILIKEIT.) That would require significant coverage of Assael from multiple independent reliable sources. The papers and preprints are not independent. The FT mentions Assael in passing (as I had previously said) but I think this is far short of WP:SIGCOV. I do not even see Assael's name anywhere in the BBC article -- perhaps I am missing something?? (Please tell me if I am!) I also do not see him mentioned in the other articles in reliable sources. It does look plausible to me that LipNet is notable, but notability is not inherited. I agree that a redirect could be a sensible alternative to deletion. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 16:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Russ Woodroofe: You need to elaborate (oh, and define 'significant coverage' pls!). You are asking for significant coverage, but this does not always apply to all academics-researchers out there. After all I am using both the citation profile and sources to back my claims focused on WP:SIGCOV notability. The fact that BBC (and the FT) clearly highlight the achievements of AI algorithms developed by Yannis Assael (Pythia + LipNet as a lead author) is more than enough to link the person to the subject even in articles where his surname is not mentioned. It appears that LipNet was mainly developed by two people, same as Pythia. The hyperlink I was referring to, can be found right after the quotation [1] (click on wrote the researchers or look at the hyperlink). Like I said, preprint publications should not be used on Wikipedia - you're absolutely right on this. However, the notability of some preprint papers (as they are lauded by the BBC as a breakthrough achievement in lip reading applications) should be considered encyclopaedic content, hence the mentions in other reputable sources. IMO all the above-mentioned achievements meet the notability criteria fully. Glucken123 ( talk) 17:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Glucken123: academics can also reach notability through the WP:NPROF criteria, which I believe is what you are now referring to. This usually would require a high level of citations. How high depends somewhat on the field. Consensus in the last AfD from Wikipedians experienced with this set of criteria was that it is WP:TOOSOON for Assael in this regard. "Wrote the researchers" is not a mention of Assael, except very indirectly. I will answer some of your other questions about notability on your talk page. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 18:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Russ Woodroofe: Absolutely - my point is that a medium level of citations alongside significant coverage on mainstream media can be combined in the case of Assael. AI is indeed a highly cited field and with the previous consensus, things could have been different indeed. In its current state, however, the article was significantly expanded as it presents evidence backed by solid references (and Forbes IMO also is reliable). It seems that we disagree about BBC, but that is ok. I will respond to your points on my talk page in a bit. Thanks! Glucken123 ( talk) 19:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Compared to the previous article there is now significant coverage about the person/research. The content is based on enough reliable sources: New Scientist (2x), Science, Financial Times, BBC, Verge, Observer, Independent etc. Finally, if the person has made breakthroughs that are used by NVIDIA, I am happy to vote for keep as a notable person. AntoniadK ( talk) 22:11, 23 January 2022 (UTC) — AntoniadK ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • Delete The first AfD got it right here. Involved in a couple projects, but his actual role in them is unclear, and most of the press coverage is about the projects (many of the cited articles don't mention him at all). Nor would I call the press coverage in-depth; the item in The Verge is about the best of the lot, and it's only a brief interview. I sense a lot of churnalism and PR involved; these are the kinds of stories that don't even bother to seek out comment from someone not involved in the research. In principle, press reports could carry a researcher over the bar by talking about the work and not the person, but this is not the type of serious coverage that could qualify. His citation profile doesn't amount to a WP:PROF#C1 pass. XOR'easter ( talk) 07:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
extended discussion with socks collapsed
    • This is very common in academia, opening any of the links of the published work in those articles I see from the authors list that was led/co-led all the research mentioned. For example the the Verge article that you mention is about his work "LipNet". I think that 15 news articles from BBC, MIT Tech Review, New Scientist is a reasonable number to show the credibility of the press coverage. AntoniadK ( talk) 10:50, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
      • I will have to agree with AntoniadK on this. I find the comment on churnalism a little exaggerated and perhaps unnecessary? It does not look like PR at all. Theoretically speaking, the citation profile alongside the coverage can amount to a clear WP:PROF#C1 pass. On top of that there is clear proof that Assael is one of the two main researchers behind LipNet (check the research paper link on the BBC article) and Pythia, which is mentioned in the Financial Times piece. Birdsandwasps ( talk) 13:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
        • New Scientist is dross. MIT Technology Review is often not a lot better. In this case, the Tech Review item is just a blog post summarizing a few other webpages; so, it's not WP:SIGCOV. The BBC item was based entirely upon the researchers' own preprint and an Internet comment thread about it. Should we call that "in-depth reporting"? No, we should have the bare modicum of self-respect required not to debase ourselves that way. Learn what churnalism looks like. The media reporting here is nearly pure PR, recycled for easy clicks. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
          • Comment You might want to read WP:NEWSCIENTIST and WP:FORBES. Both notes appear to be quite clear on the quality of the sources. There is no evidence of any PR related to the BBC piece. Glucken123 ( talk) 19:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
            • I've read them. "Generally reliable" is not universally reliable. Clicking one step further and reading the most recent discussion that the text at RSP is supposed to summarize, it turns out to be substantially harsher than the summary makes it sound. Setting that aside, which we probably shouldn't, the claim in question here is sensationalist and thus contentious, and so even WP:NEWSCIENTIST advises caution. WP:FORBES is beside the point: nobody questions that he really was listed on their "30 under 30". We're just saying that that isn't adequate to establish notability. The BBC story is so superficial that it doesn't matter whether it was originally motivated by a press release or not; it fails to be WP:SIGCOV. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
              • The most recent discussion does not indicate any disagreements about the use of WP:NEWSCIENTIST in WP. It's just a discussion, completely unrelated to the reliability of the source. Therefore, I suggest you read the conversation you provided as evidence as users agreed that it is too early to tell. Next. Glucken123 ( talk) 20:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
                • "Completely unrelated"? A discussion where an editor says A lot what New Scientist does is frankly sensationalism and churnalism? And another editor stated They called me in two different occasions to ask for comments for an article, and badly misquoted me to make it more juicy? Sure sounds like a discussion of reliability to me. The sentiment was expressed that it was too early to tell whether being bought by the Daily Mail was bad, but no formal consensus was established in favor of that. And even if being bought by the Daily Mail has not changed them for the worse, they were already bad for contentious, controversial or sensationalist topics. XOR'easter ( talk) 21:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
                  • Alright, let's try this again. Unless there is an official change in WP:NEWSCIENTIST, approved by other users, the article can still be used to back evidence in WP articles. So far, your comments have been somewhat.. volatile and counterproductive (see below [1] [2]). More specifically, the above response is just your own personal opinion as you are exclusively referring to comments shared by other users. All I can see is a big green light in WP:NEWSCIENTIST - pretty sure you can see that too. Imagine if others users looked at The Times or The Wall Street Journal (both green-lighted) and argued that, because of Rupert Murdoch they should not be used in WP articles anymore. This could only be made possible through a vote. Feel free to initiate that! Am I missing something here? I don't think so. Since this is a deletion discussion, why don't we stick to the policy and avoid any unnecessary POV, shall we? Glucken123 ( talk) 21:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
                    • What is "volatile" or "counterproductive" about comparing one publication described as a publicity stunt/vanity scam with another that has often been described in the same way? Or in pointing out that there were strong negative comments in a discussion that the summary at WP:RSP gives no indication of? I can indeed plainly see that New Scientist is listed in green at WP:RSP. What I have been saying all along is that even if we ignore common sense and take that as absolute gospel, it's still not a source that contributes meaningfully to notability in this case. XOR'easter ( talk) 22:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
                    • Addendum: the sources added here are interviews, which are generally seen as iffy for the purposes of establishing wiki-notability. Since the interviews were seemingly prompted by the Forbes "30 under 30", itself a dubious proposition, I can't quite say that they represent the world at large taking note of the article subject in a meaningful way (glomming onto somebody else's near-meaningless publicity isn't the same as coming to an independent judgment that someone's work is important). I sincerely thank the editor for putting in the work to find them, but I can't say that they sway my opinion. XOR'easter ( talk) 22:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
                      • That is not true as the article from To Vima discusses achievements within the field, including his other future projects involving machine learning. The second article from Kathimerini pays tribute to Forbes 30 under 30 indeed, but also discusses his achievements. Other authors have provided reliable sources such as the FT, Verge and Independent. Glucken123 ( talk) 22:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
                        • To Vima leads with the Forbes 30 under 30. Kathimerini explicitly chose to interview three people because they were on it. Ta Nea did the same thing (and apparently relied on Kathimerini for at least some of their information). These aren't sources, they're clones. As Russ Woodroofe argued above, the FT did not give significant coverage. The item in The Verge is a brief interview, so again dubious for wiki-notability purposes. The item in the Independent is seemingly reliable, but also pretty insubstantial (short, and failing the "get a comment from someone not involved in the research" test). XOR'easter ( talk) 23:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
                          • Errr no! To Vima only mentions it as an achievement - it proceeds to discuss (in a long article completely unrelated to Forbes!) his research profile and projects. Kathimerini indeed interviewed the three Greeks because of Forbes 30 under 30, but still does not change the fact that it's the leading Greek newspaper! Finally, Ta Nea mentions Kathimerini in a different section - completely unrelated to Asssael. I did not say at any point that the Financial Times piece gives significant coverage. But together with other mentions (which are more than enough IMO) and his citation profile, could certainly make a strong case against a potential deletion of the article. Glucken123 ( talk) 23:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
                            • To Vima starts off with a non-achievement and treats it as an achievement, then provides some empty fawning; I can't honestly say that it's the kind of serious biographical profile which can help an interview count as a good source. I mention Ta Nea relying upon Kathimerini to indicate the shallowness of the reporting effort that seems to have gone into the blurbs they provided. The fundamental problem here is that we have a heap of superficial or otherwise mediocre sources, in a topic area that is rife with sensationalism. That's a bad foundation to try to build an article upon. XOR'easter ( talk) 23:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, no significant change since my delete opinion in the previous AfD, other than the "Forbes 30 under 30" listing, on which I agree with the nominator that this sort of early-career publicity is inadequate for notability in the absence of anything else. If there were a single 30 under 30 listing for all discipline globally, it might be worth something, but they break it down into so many subcategories by specialty and region that it becomes meaningless publicity, almost a vanity scam. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    • It does have a Marquis Who's Who feel to it. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Support comes only from spas. 22:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC).
  • Comment I added other mentions including TechCrunch and included three pieces from Greek media ( Kathimerini + To Vima). One of them is an interview with Hellenic Broadcasting Corporation. Feel free to further-review those edits. Glucken123 ( talk) 15:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • information Administrator note Passerby note that I blocked two !voters here per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Birdsandwasps, and that [11] may be of interest to the closing administrator. -- Blablubbs ( talk) 17:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Addendum to above All keep votes appear to be from sockpuppets and have been struck through. Lavalizard101 ( talk) 17:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Goldmines Telefilms Pvt Ltd

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

Repeatedly recreated by multiple editors over the last few months. Time to decide whether it is notable and can have an article (at a better title), or not notable and then new versions can be G4 deleted and title variations salted. See Draft:Goldmines Picture, Goldmines Telefilms Pvt. Ltd, Draft:Goldmines Telefilms Pvt. Ltd., and Goldmines Telefilms (perhaps others as well?). Fram ( talk) 10:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

I think the topic is notable and have backing of sources. I provided quite a few at the article. Success think ( talk) 11:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: Nothing to show independent notability, fails WP:GNG, WP:NCORP. Sources need to have significant coverage on the company, not on specific productions. There is an existing draft that should be worked on until accepted by a reviewer. Ravensfire ( talk) 14:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

The subject is notable, and I'm working on its development, give sometim. I also provided refs to verification. Dharma Productions have article than why not this production ? Have petients. Success think ( talk) 16:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: Some notability, but not really enough to keep it intact. Glucken123 ( talk) 19:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Success think, that's why there is a draft article, where it CAN be worked on and developed with patience. When it's in main article space, it needs to be in decent shape. Sources need to be about the COMPANY primary, not about a particular production. Ravensfire ( talk) 16:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Ravensfire: I did some work, are you satisfied the sub is notable. As far I know 2 or 3 refs is also enough on WP and I also saw many articles are present her without a single source. This sub is notable. Success think ( talk) 17:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC) I add more data in Goldmines article & provided 12 refs. I think it is notable now and no need to delete it. So close this discussion. Success think ( talk) 18:50, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Another promotional effort from undisclosed paid editors. The subject fails NCORP. This article relies heavily on one citation (used many times) that is an interview. Much of the rest is routine or churnalism. I checked one source that doesn't support assertions in the article. Chris Troutman ( talk) 21:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Company does not have any real significance or any real news reports. It is just known as a dubbing company but that is about it. I would suggest it gets moved to the draft space or just entirely deleted it does not even have any purpose to be present. SP013 ( talk) 06:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply

@ SP013: Sir, I wrote this article & I'm not a paid editor. I got into this sub just 'cause of Pushpa : The Rise, I added more data into it and if you fellow editors think it's not worth to have page on WP, tell me without wasting time, I put some work on it. I'll not add anything now into it. If you it's not follow WP: NOTABLE than your free, But Economic Times have all the information about this firm, ET is notable newspaper of India and you can also add. Success think ( talk) 07:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Robert E. Dunker

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

Fails WP:GNG. The two existing sources are not independent One of the two sources is not independent, the other is just an announcement of the opening of a student center named for him, and I can't find any others. Clarityfiend ( talk) 10:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Academic notability point 6 was never meant to be broad enough to cover the heads of community colleges. Some may be notable through widespread and sustainted coverage in newsmedia. However we should expect at least as good and as wide ranging coverage in that regard as we would of mayors, and the coverage here does not meet that threshold. I strongly suspect the same is true of his successor as head of this institution that we also have an article on. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I agree with JPL that community college presidency is not automatically notable, but only through WP:GNG-level coverage, which we do not have here. The sources in the article are a non-independent one from the school he worked for and a non-in-depth one from a local newspaper article that is mostly about something else (a facility named after him). My searches didn't turn up anything elsewhere that would change that picture. — David Eppstein ( talk) 08:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete in addition to failing GNG, the content focuses mostly on the history of the community college and not the actual subject. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 14:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 20:03, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Dahlia Salah

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

Lacks the notability required to have an article. While she meets the very lax indicators of WP:NFOOTY by having played for a national team, NFOOTY / NSPORTS explicitly state that they only give a presumption of notability, and that in the end WP:GNG must be met. The only non-database source whioh gives some attention to her is an interview by the Gibraltar FA, which isn't an independent source of course. Fram ( talk) 10:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 10:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 10:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 10:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. International players are usually assumed to be more notable than club players, as it is a higher level, but the article says she has stopped playing to study? If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Just found via digging on FA Full-Time that she is currently on the books of QPR, albeit in their reserve side at the 8th level of the pyramid. Though it's not an ideal level, it still shows she's playing. VampireKilla ( talk) 00:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per consensus at similar women's football AfDs such as Linda Oe, Victoria Balomenos and Tessy Bamberg-Schitter. Having full international caps is certainly a notable achievement (playing at the highest level) and warrants a stand-alone article. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Spiderone has played for a National team at International level.Further subject is 20 years old and actively playing. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 18:45, 23 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    • So no evidence at all of meeting WP:GNG, just the same tired Sports SNG arguments which lead to people wanting to abolish it all together, and which people at the related discussion claim are not made and everybody knows that meeting NSPORTS without meeting GNG is of course not sufficient... Fram ( talk) 09:06, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete She clearly does not have the sourcing to pass GNG. She plays for the team of a Gibraltar. Let us not abuse the term "national team", and treat a team that looses to Liechstenstein like it is the same as one that is competitive against Brazil. We need to be logical in how we apply criteria, and if we start treating every member of every "national" team of a micro-state or a dinky overseas territory of another country as default notable the results will be absurd. If one of these "national" teams actually wins several international games, and maybe even is a contender in the world cup it will make sense, but acting like the team for a place with a population of 34,000 and an area of 2.6 square miles is in any sense a "national" team, especially when the place is an overseas dependency, is just not a realistic assessment of the situation involved. She is young, and so may well at some point play at a level that generates significant coverage, but we do not know that, we cannot predict the future, and we do not create articles until the coverage has actually come to be, not just because we think coverage likely. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:44, 25 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I disagree with the above notion that smaller national teams are less important than larger ones, she plays in the same qualifiers as other international players. Passes GNG, and presumably GNG.-- Ortizesp ( talk) 14:42, 26 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    • She only played in a friendly, not even in a qualifier. And being one of the 11 (plus substitutes) best players at any given time is somewhat easier in a "country" of 32,000 people than in a country of millions of course. National teams like the one from Gibraltar have never come close to winning anything or to qualifying for any tournament, the players in the team are usually not important otherwise (don't play at a high level), and most importantly they don't get the coverage needed for an article. Fram ( talk) 08:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Fram's and JPL's rationales are spot-on. Meeting NFOOTY is irrelevant if GNG is failed, and no one has produced evidence of SIGCOV. There is far more precedent supporting deletion of SSG-meeting, GNG-failing footballers than the three AfDs cited in support of keeping. JoelleJay ( talk) 18:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Deepamoni Saikia

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

No Notability. Doesn't pass WP:GNG. Lack of citations. Arunudoy ( talk) 09:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:03, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Priyanka Saha

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

The bio article does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Has few passing mentions in un-reliable sources. – Kavyansh.Singh ( talk) 09:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC) Kavyansh.Singh ( talk) 09:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy delete: as G11, unambiguous advertising or promotion. –– FormalDude talk 09:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    Hey I did some research and found some more reference to the subject on google. I think that if given some time, more sources and references would come up. May be it would be a good idea to hold the deletion for a few weeks. That is my opinion. Wiki3editor1986 ( talk) 09:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Hey @ Kavyansh.Singh
  • Nice to hear from you. I do understand your concern about the GNG, however, in my research, I found that the subject got an award. And the citation number [4] is the list of people who got the award in 2021 with a short description of what they were awarded. The list was published in The Print, which I guess is a reliable and a notable source. Your citation number [3] is of Republic World pray explain how it is un-reliable. Further more, when I tried to improve the article, the popup suggested that we source from Google, and you are suggesting that Google Knowledge Graph is unreliable, this has gotten me confused. As even now, as I am trying to understand, there is a suggestion under the name Priyanka Saha near the top of this page that is suggesting we find sources from Google. Sincerely I am scratching my head in confusion. Wiki3editor1986 ( talk) 10:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Hi @ Wiki3editor1986, sorry for being bit unclear in my previous comment. So, Google is merely a search engine. It (almost) provides all the sources available on the internet. Google itself is not a source. The top of this article says that you can find sources through Google. Don't use Google or Google knowledge panel as a source. As for The Print citation, yes, it is generally reliable. But, (1) it just has a passing mention of the topic, that is, it does not provides information about the topic in detail. It is fine to use that source to cite that she received that award. But, it does not help establish the notability. (2) If the India Icon Awards, had itself been notable per Wikipedia standards, it would have helped in assertion of notability. But that award is itself not notable, thus we can't claim that the subject is notable as she won that award. And as for the Republic World/Republic TV source, per WP:REPUBLICTV, "[in 2021,] there was a consistent and overwhelming consensus to deprecate Republic TV. [Republic TV] Editors cite hoaxes, fake news, fabrication, misinformation and conspiracy theories.". Thus, it should not be used. – Kavyansh.Singh ( talk) 11:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    Thank You @ Kavyansh.Singh for clarifying. My opinion in the matter was, as my research yielded some sources that were not originally in the article, it might so be that more would come and they might be reliable and verifiable as per the standards. So in place of deleting the page immediately, would it not be better to draftify per WP:HEY as @ FormalDude suggested and let the article provider improve on it, make proper and verifiable citations over time and re-submit for review? Wiki3editor1986 ( talk) 12:15, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Just a note that Wiki3editor1986 has been globally blocked as a "[s]pam-only account" – Kavyansh.Singh ( talk) 18:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete. Geschichte ( talk) 08:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Ronald Rose D

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

Wikipedia is not a Linkedin; WP:NOTCV. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens ( talk) 07:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:09, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Sadanand Menon

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

Going by GNG and the notability guidelines for creative professionals and for teachers in higher education, the subject does not seem notable. Most attention in RSes has been about allegations of sexual misconduct, and the only thing in the article apart from the lead is a section about those allegations. Seeing as he's not been convicted of anything and seems to be a fairly low-profile individual, the section is a BLPvio; apart from that, there is no real substance in the article. There is only one ref from RS that's directly about him (cite no. 1) and even that is very bare-bones. Searches on JSTOR and TWL return nothing of note either, so the article should be deleted. W. Tell DCCXLVI ( talk to me!/ c) 06:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Samia Bouazza

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

non notable businesswoman. Fails WP:GNG. Lack of significant coverage about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. DMySon ( talk) 05:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

https://www.thenationalnews.com/business/markets/2022/01/14/abu-dhabis-multiply-group-looks-to-aggressively-invest-845m-of-its-listings-proceeds/ https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/abu-dhabis-multiply-group-plans-%24845-mln-ma-expansion-drive https://www.arabianbusiness.com/gcc/uae/468738-abu-dhabis-multiply-invests-again-in-us-taxi-advertising-platform https://www.gdnonline.com/Details/1018232 ( Starling2022 ( talk) 05:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)) reply

  • Delete We should not have articles that were rejected at AfC. The proper procedure is to resubmit for recogsideration. We need to stop letting people do end runs around our processes. We also need to start requiring all articles to go to AfC. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

SnapEx

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

Notability is not inherited from the available references. Fails WP:GNG also fails WP:NCORP. DMySon ( talk) 05:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: The company is the first one who launched its token that uses the CFD platform. We as Wikipedia editors can add more resources and make the page more valuable to the users. We can use More citations needed template for lack of verifiability instead of deletion.-- Daringsmith ( talk) 06:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Move to draft, otherwise Delete. out of the 6 refs currently. Crunchbase is deprecated as a source, Coin Market Cap and Coin Carp, Bit Times are just exchange listings, Asia Crypto market is a company profile page, Set of Launch Crypto... is a press release. A quick search on Google indicates mainly on the launch of the CFD product, most likely a result of the press release. – robertsky ( talk) 07:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: in agreement with DMySon. - Hatchens ( talk) 07:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Greenfield, North Dakota

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

We have the rare gift in this state of a topo from 1918 which shows this to be another siding, with the bonus of an aerial from 1964 showing a pair of grain elevators and nothing else. It's all gone now, but in any case, not a notable settlement. Mangoe ( talk) 05:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 12:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Wildfires in San San Bernardino County, California

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

There is absolutely nothing in this article that suggests wildfires in San Bernardino are more notable than, say, wildfires in San Diego County or Shasta County. I cannot see why such a topic warrants an article of its own, especially if the article mostly consists of a list. Love of Corey ( talk) 05:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. Geschichte ( talk) 08:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Naked Truth (band)

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku ( talk) 04:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was speedy delete. (non-admin closure) — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 14:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Rayne Fernandez

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

Tried to find sources on both Google and Google news, and I couldn't find any. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 04:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

The article on Rayne Fernandez was not written by her. Rayne's management team created the Rayne Fernandez account and wrote the article of Rayne Fernandez through valid sources via her website (www.raynefernandez.com, extensive google search, and her social media accounts). Please reconsider deleting this account and advise on improving the article. Thank for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:3F00:8FA0:5DF2:5B53:62F9:6BDD ( talk) 05:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC) (moved from above the heading) reply

1. articles shouldn't be created by those with a COI about them (in this case the management team making this WP:UPE). 2. Her website and socail media accountsare not RS that can be used to determine notability. Lavalizard101 ( talk) 12:10, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Kearny Arlington

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

I can barely find evidence of the teams existence and certainly not enough to pass NORG. The American Cup that they won is stated in the article to be different from the notable American Cup. It just doesn't seem the team was particularly notable. Tartar Torte 03:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Tentative Delete - Two sources provided. One is an archive of what appears to be a fan-run website without an editorial process. The other is an article from the New York Times, which, if it contained the information in question, would be a clear indication of notability. The trouble I have is that I clicked the PDF linked in the article, and nothing I see there mentions soccer in any way... the PDF talks about golf, yachting, polo, track and field, baseball, and a racist crime report, but no soccer (or association football) that I can see. Now, this PDF is only a clipping from the newspaper, and its entirely possible that the newpaper did talk about this soccer team on that day, and it's just not in the PDF... but there's nothing here as far as I can see. This !vote will change to keep if a valid source is found. Fieari ( talk) 04:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, per nominator. Even with the NYT article, doesn't seem like enough to pass WP:GNG. Spf121188 ( talk) 17:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:50, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 21:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - @ GiantSnowman:, your comment seems to have been deleted before it was submitted Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Sorry, IT issues, fixed. Giant Snowman 21:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Absolutely not notability here. There are no sources and the ones (only two in total) in the reference list cannot be used to retain this article on WP. Glucken123 ( talk) 19:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. Tartar Torte 21:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 12:15, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Charlie Tjoe

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

Both references provided in the general references page are unreliable, and overall the subject appears to just be an actor who doesn't have much coverage at all I could find. Also, the name in the article title is misspelled. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 03:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 02:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

The Filipino Post

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

Notability in question. The newspaper exists but Google search suggests that it is an obscure publication. The article has also been unreferenced since 2011. Lenticel ( talk) 02:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Wojciech Flera

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

Fails WP:BIO. Diplomats are not inherently notable. This person did not even become ambassador but a lower ranked consul. Nothing in gnews. LibStar ( talk) 01:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom, and google news search with 0 hits. Fieari ( talk) 01:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 02:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 02:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete basically no reliable sources or in-depth coverage. They aren't even the ambassador, just "Deputy Chief". Wgullyn ( talk) 02:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above, has just 3 references. Severe storm 28 02:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Three references to independent reliable sources that devote truly significant coverage to the topic are sufficient to establish notability. This is not such a case. No such coverage has yet been brought forward. This appears to be a non-notable mid level diplomat just doing his job. Cullen328 ( talk) 02:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete people who actually hold ambassadorial rank are not default notable. Those who are not actual ambassadors are even less likely to be notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Financial transaction

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

This is essentially a long dictionary definition with some arbitrary examples, some of which are quite imprecise (ie, a bank account isn't inherently a "financial transaction" in and of itself). Unsourced for a decade, largely original research. Lots of pages link here, so maybe this should redirect to a better, more appropriate article? ZimZalaBim talk 01:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 02:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 02:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep there are definitely reliable sources about the topic. Just because the article isn't sourced right now doesn't mean good sources don't exist. It is rated of high importance to two WikiProjects, so it is definitely notable. Wgullyn ( talk) 02:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, this article is far from being a dictionary definition and there are a large number of books and papers dedicated this topic. The issues with this article can be resolved through the normal editing process. SailingInABathTub ( talk) 20:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep unquestionably notable. PianoDan ( talk) 17:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 01:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Maya Dobreva

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

Fails WP:BIO. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Hardly any coverage. There is also a badminton player of the same name that gets more coverage. LibStar ( talk) 01:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 13:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC) reply

1977 South Dakota Coyotes football team

1977 South Dakota Coyotes football team (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Draft which was moved to mainspace in quite a WP:POINTY manner. No prose whatsoever beyond a textual restatement of statistics included in the infobox. Each year, there are hundreds if not thousands of university sports teams, and most of their seasons are not independently notable. There is no indication how this one is supposedly outstanding enough that it warrants an article. Fails WP:NOTSTATS, WP:NSEASONS and WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. None of the sources are anything but routine match coverage, also failing WP:SIGCOV. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 00:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 01:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 01:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, per the sources in the article. Meets GNG. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 01:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    Nonsense. The sources in the article are routine match reports (something which is easily verifiable from their dates and their contents) and do not meet SIGCOV. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 01:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - In light of the expansion and sourcing, this meets WP:GNG. Fieari ( talk) 23:42, 23 January 2022 (UTC) Delete - Looking at the South Dakota Coyotes football page, I could see an argument for having an article for the 1973, 1985, 1986, 2006, 2017, and 2021 seasons... but not other years than these. (I could also see an argument for having an article on none of these.) This does seem to fail WP:NSEASONS, which specifies that top college teams can have articles on years they went to championship-- this is not such. Honestly, I rather wish wikipedia did allow indiscriminate lists of facts like this as long as reliable verifiability is met (in which case we would keep this article), but that's a discussion for elsewhere. Current standards say no. Alas. Fieari ( talk) 01:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Fieari: In light of the substantial expansion of the article and arguments below, would you be willing to give this a second look? Cbl62 ( talk) 19:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Yep, I'll change my !vote above. Fieari ( talk) 23:42, 23 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Question. The standard proposed by Fieari would imply the deletion of many thousands of articles. I'm not raising OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I'm saying that WP:NSEASONS doesn't describe current reality, in which individual season articles are created for every team at the Division I FBS level, and a goodly number at the FCS level (which this is, more or less). You could do a merge into an article about South Dakota Coyotes seasons in the 1970s, and in fact NSEASONS suggests that outcome, but that may not make for a good experience for the reader. I suppose what I'm saying is that while RandomCanadian has a reasonable and valid point grounded in policy and guidelines, those policies and guidelines don't match the facts on the ground. Under those circumstances, I think the movement to mainspace is less pointy and more the frustrated reaction of an editor who's not sure why this season of South Dakota football is being singled out for special treatment, as opposed to the other 73. Mackensen (talk) 02:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Mackensen: It has always been understood that the entirety of NSPORTS (including NSEASONS) is an inclusive standard, rather than an exclusive season. If a season receives SIGCOV in multiple, reliable sources, it qualifies as notable under GNG, regardless of whether or not it falls within NSEASONS. Cbl62 ( talk) 02:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Also, NSEASONS is drafted to cover all college sports, and in most sports, the coverage is such that most season articles would not pass GNG. College football is different in that the SIGCOV is far more extensive, such that Division I football seasons almost certainly pass GNG. GNG is the real measure that needs to be applied here. Cbl62 ( talk) 02:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Picking the most inclusive possible criterion misses the point. Meeting GNG is not enough if it fails WP:NOT (as it does in this case), or if it can more effectively be handled on some other page instead of having a separate page of its own (as brightly explained on WP:N). NSEASONS (although it might need minor improvements) is one of the few parts of NSPORTS which is actually helpful in figuring out whether something should really have a stand-alone article or if it would better be covered elsewhere. I wouldn't be opposed to having a summary of the team's history and major sporting achievements in its article, but thousands upon thousands of run-of-the-mill model, like this:
Year Run-of-the-mill football team

The Year Run-of-the-mill football team represented the University of Run-of-the-mill in the Year NCAA Division X sports season as a member of the Random College Conference (RCC). Led by Xth-year coach John Doe, the Run-of-the-mills compiled an overall record of A-B and a mark of X-Y in conference play, placing Nth in the RCC.

[insert schedule and results table here]

This is the basic format of almost every page in the appropriate subsection of Template:South Dakota Coyotes football navbox (even 2017 South Dakota Coyotes football team isn't that much different: the sole significant addition is a box-score for every single game (without any prose whatsoever), which is even more NOTSTATS than the basic table). And for thousands of other sports teams. I do not think this imparts much if any pertinent information to readers other than mere statistical minutiae (and, as a reader, statistical minutiae is not something I'd look for on Wikipedia - the various databases do their job well enough). It would be better if a way of combining those, either in the main team article, as I suggest above, or in some other grouping, would avoid having these as mere statistical dumps and encourage more thoughtful prose (including, if it exists, analysis from secondary sources and not just newspapers match reports). RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 02:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Typically, anti-sports editors complain that NSPORTS is way too inclusive and that our core notability policy at GNG should govern. .... but in this case, the topic clearly passes GNG and so the argument is made that meeting GNG is not enough because GNG is the "most inclusive possible criterion". Bottom line: some editors just don't like sports articles and want them deleted regardless of what our guidelines say. Cbl62 ( talk) 03:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Bottom-line, you've picked the most inclusive criterion that you think applies (since this clearly fails NSEASONS, then you're trying to argue that it meets GNG, since finding a few routine newspapers reports and sowing enough doubt that they could actually pass off as SIGCOV is not that difficult to attempt), but you actually haven't even addressed the GNG issue (because all of the sources are still routine coverage), not the more fundamental NOT issues (which you have entirely sidestepped). RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 03:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Bottom line: GNG is clearly satisfied with SIGCOV in multiple, reliable and independent sources. NSEASONS (as discussed below), like all of NSPORTS, is an inclusive standard that does not override GNG. As for WP:NOT, you have not even articulated which prong of that guideline you think applies, so it's rather difficult to reply to a vague hand-wave. Cbl62 ( talk) 03:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
No, routine match coverage in local newspapers is not SIGCOV. We don't write articles based on obituaries (even if these do contain "significant coverage"). We don't write articles about local fire services if the only thing that can be said about them is a fill-in-the-blanks "X fire service is responsible for firefighting in Y area." We don't (or shouldn't) write articles about local team sport seasons if the only thing that can be said is as in the template I've provided above. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a sports database (which is what those articles are and are likely to remain) and not a collection of routine coverage of events of little to no long-term significance. See also [22]. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 17:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Feature articles are not routine.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 20:10, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I've expanded the article a bit with sources I was able to find, and there are now sixteen news sources in the article. This include coverage of every game and the team's notable achievements, as one of its players broke school and conference rushing records. There's also this article and this article, which aren't cited because I couldn't find a place for them in the current version of the article; both could be used to expand the article in the future. I'd say the article easily passes WP:GNG with those sources. As for WP:NSEASONS, that guidance hasn't reflected either community standards or known source coverage of college football in quite some time; the reality is that most seasons on teams in Division I, and even a handful on lower-division teams, will have enough coverage to pass GNG. TheCatalyst31 Reaction• Creation 02:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Passes WP:GNG per the sourcing efforts of TheCatalyst31. While South Dakota was then a Division II team, it has been promoted to Division I which enhances the notability of the program and its history. Cbl62 ( talk) 03:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    WTF? Notability is not inherent, nor inherited, nor based on some sense of what is historically "significant" or not. I'm not even sure the two sentence statistical mentions are more than NOTSTATS and NOTNEWS stuff: these could probably be covered on some other, more relevant page (if it exists, I don't know, List of NCAA football records, or maybe even on South Dakota Coyotes football team - I'm sure if you combined all the non-trivial prose from all of the seasons article, you'd have plenty enough to write a decent section, and it probably wouldn't even be too much). The other sources are still routine match reports. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 03:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Despite the vast improvement of this article to the point that it will soon be approaching GA status, it's clear you're unwilling to maintain an open mind and will stubbornly insist that every in-depth piece of SIGCOV that is added to the article is simply "routine" coverage. Rather than continuing to reply here, I'll just continue to improve the article. Best, Cbl62 ( talk) 18:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
No, this is a fundamental disagreement over what Wikipedia is and should be. How you're going about, you seem to think it should cover every event which happens to get mentioned somewhere in newspapers (yes, the local newspapers reporting on yesterday's football game is "routine", and there are thousands of such games every single year played by hundreds if not similarly thousands of different teams. Should we really have an article about each one of those teams providing details about each one of their routine games? I'll remind you we don't have that even for pro teams, much less for university teams anywhere but in the US...), acting as some form of sports pseudo-database or the like. This is probably not the place to fully expound upon why it shouldn't. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 19:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Well, two points on that. One, college football in the United States should probably be understood as semi-professional. It can't really be compared to any other university sport with the possible exception of college basketball. Two, we do, in fact, have such articles about professional teams. See for example 2021 Kansas City Chiefs season. Mackensen (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
An AFD for one article is not the place for a discussion on "a fundamental disagreement over what Wikipedia is and should be" -- Paul McDonald ( talk) 20:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • @ RandomCanadian: Just so you know, nobody here (certainly not me) is suggesting that every college football season should have a stand-alone article. It's my general view that season articles should be restricted to Division I programs. There are some exceptions, however, where the coverage warrants stand-alone treatment. The four Dakota universities are among those exceptions, and in part based on the extensive coverage and following, all four of the Dakota universities have now been promoted to Division I. Cbl62 ( talk) 20:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Cleary passes GNG per cited sources. Jweiss11 ( talk) 03:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. As noted above, WP:NSEASONS doesn't reflect current practice. To the degree that subject notability guidelines are descriptive rather than prescriptive. this represents a problem best addressed at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports), not here. A season article is a useful way of grouping information that otherwise belongs (potentially) in at least two places: the main article about the football team (which we all agree is notable), and, in ascending article, the main article about the conference during that season, or potentially the whole division. It could also be a useful container for information that would otherwise be located in articles about the head coach or some of the assistants, and also individual players. Most of these topics are presumptively notable. Breaking out that information into an individual season article doesn't change that. That the article started bare-bones doesn't signify; many articles start with a bare-bones structure, with the easy part done first. Mackensen (talk) 18:10, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep sources in the article pass WP:GNG. I understand the nominator disagrees with that position. I leave it to the closer to determine.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 19:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep now that more referencing has been added and the prose has been built out. I still don't hate the idea of seasons such as this being rolled into an over article of a program's history. I also think that this nomination is far more WP:POINTY than moving the draft to the main space. GPL93 ( talk) 19:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This article, while it may be a less than run of the mill season for a D2 school, is pretty well sourced with independent, reliable publications (some of which may be routine, but I think it still passes WP:GNG.) I will concede that there is a slight aspect of WP:FANCRUFT to the article, but it doesn't rise to the level of deletion. Spf121188 ( talk) 20:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, it passes WP:GNG, as what other users said. Severe storm 28 22:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Meets WP:GNG, per all above. Definitely a WP:POINTY nomination here. Ejgreen77 ( talk) 05:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per TheCatalyst's improvements and others above. PCN02WPS ( talk | contribs) 06:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Clearly meets GNG with sufficient sources, and a decent rewrite as well. ~ EDDY ( talk/ contribs)~ 13:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep passes GNG, pointy nomination. LEPRICAVARK ( talk) 19:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I think it's starting to snow here. Spf121188 ( talk) 19:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_January_21&oldid=1069120115"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE