Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 25 July 27 >

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 no consensus. Indeed, more sources were added to the article, but the nominator and user that !voted for deletion have not revisited the discussion to assess the new sources provided. Ultimately, after two relistings and relatively minimal participation here, no consensus has ensued. North America 1000 05:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Chad_Richardson

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

Chad Richardson does not meet Wikipedia's GNG. He has very little press coverage, none of which come from reliable third party sources. This is a good example of unambiguous advertising or promotion. Son012189 ( talk) 23:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC) — Son012189 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:04, 20 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Fails WP:GNG; WP:MUSICBIO - woeful SEO, too. There's a lot of Chad Richardson's out there... Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 12:39, 21 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – With plenty of articles in reliable third-party sources, the subject meets WP:GNG. I've added a few more references and tried to tone down some of the more promotional material. Coverage includes articles about him in The Globe and Mail, The Standard, The Telegram, Jam! Music, Canadian Musician, Words & Music, The Newfoundland Herald and Patch. Also, he was profiled on the national news when he landed the role in Rent (A CTV portrait on the star of "Rent", CTV National News – CTV Television. 6 December 1997). Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 03:00, 22 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:03, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. Per WP:HEY. (non-admin closure) –– FormalDude talk 18:57, 30 July 2022 (UTC) reply

The One (Yandel album)

The One (Yandel album) (  | talk | history | 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 significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. Suggest redirection, but that was challenged. –– FormalDude talk 23:49, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. –– FormalDude talk 23:49, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 12:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    I don't know why it has to be deleted. I added the billboard chart and anyone can search for articles about it. This album has notoriety. So I don't why you want to delete it. It should stay. I have done other album in which some didn't even chart yet I was able to make it a valid page on Wikipedia. The One by Yandel should stay, especially since it is an album from one half of one of the greatest duos of all time in Reggaeton and in Latin Music. You could have looked for an article your self or at least add a tag saying it needs improvement. I have seen multiple album pages with 1 or no link. The pages didn't even have the chart history on it nor it had charted at all and those album pages exist. Yet, you want to delete one that did chart and did qualify as an album page on Wikipedia. I mean Billboard did an article about it so that should count as something. Here is an article about it. I hope this is good enough as I will make the effort to save this page. Also it has a page in the Spanish Wikipedia, so I think I can find articles on it. Even though it would be in Spanish, it still works as resources. Other Spanish music albums have mostly articles in Spanish anyways. DominicanWikiEdit1996 ( talk) 00:11, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    The Billboard article appears to be the only significant source, which suggests the topic is not notable. If you can find additional sources that contain significant coverage, I would be happy to review them. –– FormalDude talk 00:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    You can actually find links and references to articles on the Spanish Wikipedia. The album page has multiple articles that makes it notable. Its like I said, their in Spanish for the most part. I think the Billboard article is the only one in English. I don't know if you know Spanish but you can use a translator to read them and I could also add them to the page as proof of its notable. Other pages English Wikipedia have used articles in Spanish to proof their notable. Would you be ok with Spanish written articles? If you think those articles will be good enough would you remove The One by Yandel from articles for deletion? All I have to do is add the articles to the English page. DominicanWikiEdit1996 ( talk) 01:41, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    Update: So I added 3 articles, the one from Billboard because it's the only article in English I could find, and 2 articles in Spanish that makes this album notable. Because of what is written on them, I updated and wrote more information on the album's page. I hope this is good enough and that you can remove the deletion tag from the album page. I really want this page to stay as Yandel other albums are active on Wikipedia and this is also part of his history. I had also recently created two album pages for his his duo partner Wisin. I haven't any problems with those pages yet as they are also notable albums. This is history from the one of the greatest Reggaeton and Latin Music duos of all time. So every album they make whether it is as a duo or when they do separate projects, it will be easily notable because of their fame. Also, if there are little to no articles in English, there will, most likely be in Spanish due to the fact their that is the language they sing and rap. Latin People, Mostly Hispanics are their biggest fan based. DominicanWikiEdit1996 ( talk) 08:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - It reached high positions on the Billboard Latin charts and that is already good enough for WP:NALBUM. For such an established artist, the album is surprisingly low on reviews, but some of the articles used at Spanish Wikipedia could be used here if someone would like to add some translated excerpts, e.g. [1], [2], [3]. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 12:43, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    I have already added it to the page. You can check for yourself. I did use 2 of the links from the album page on Spanish Wikipedia. DominicanWikiEdit1996 ( talk) 13:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
Cool, but consider adding some translated text if you are able to do so, such as "Radio Hoy described the album as..." --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 13:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
I mean I think the page is as good as it is, but if you think I need to add translated text, then I could expand about how unique the album is and why he didn't have any featured artists in it. Also, we have not heard from you FormalDude about the changes in the article. Please let me know if the changes are good enough because I really want that deletion notice removed from that page. DominicanWikiEdit1996 ( talk) 00:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply
This type of debate has to stay open for about one week until an Admin decides the outcome. Hopefully a few more people will vote. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 13:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Meets WP:NALBUM with sources presented by Doomsdayer. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP ( talk) 00:26, 30 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    I have already added them if you haven't seen the page yet. I wish I had added those links when I created the page. I thought with the chart information it was good enough. However, FormalDude didn't think the same redirected it at first and then added it to articles for deletion. I think when it comes to Hispanic os Spanish music albums, people who know how to read and write Spanish should be the ones who decide if the Spanish music pages are valid or not. I am not gate keeping nor discriminating again anybody. But, it makes more sense since they can add Spanish articles to it while people who don't know nothing about the language can not understand articles in Spanish. They will only look for the ones in English for the most part. Most articles for these albums will mostly come in Spanish. Now I said people who can read and write Spanish. I didn't say Hispanics only. I know there are Hispanics that don't know Spanish for being raised in a non-Hispanic country and I know there are non-Hispanics that know Spanish well. I mean at the end of the day anybody can write and edit anything but Spanish music albums is a little more complicated for English Wikipedia. Now I don't know about FormalDude's ethnicity or what languages he speak but if he does know Spanish, he should have searched in Spanish instead of wanting to delete this page. If he doesn't know Spanish then I understand why he did what he did. But I have faith that by the end of the week the album page will stay. Thanks to the two wiki users that voted to keep it. DominicanWikiEdit1996 ( talk) 10:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Overall consensus is that the topic does not meet WP:GEOLAND. North America 1000 06:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Yusefabad, Ardabil

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

Mass-created by Passportguy ( talk · contribs) in 2009 based on an unreliable database https://tageo.com. There is something at the specified coordinates, but they are actually in East Azerbaijan Province, and the fact that this was not overwritten or redirected by Carlossuarez46 ( talk · contribs) when he mass-created Iranian village stubs is suspect. Neither of the Yusefabad stubs created by Carlossuarez46 matches this place. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 23:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • No evidence of legal recognition (i.e., incorporation or the local-law equivalent). Not a pass for WP:GEOLAND#1.
  • No reliable sources for this place at all, so it fails WP:V. Neither Citypedia nor Tageo are reliable, as can be seen not least from the fact that they have this place at the wrong location. Both appear to be Wiki-type user-created sources, and thus not reliable. Geonames is also an unreliable source for the same reasons. For the avoidance of doubt, no, a road having the same name as this supposed village is not real evidence of existence.
  • No significant coverage for passing WP:GNG, both sources are just bare-mentions of the name of the place.
Also worth mentioning that this is another case where mass-creation/ WP:MEATBOT violations have occurred, and are causing problems for us years after the fact. FOARP ( talk) 10:32, 18 July 2022 (UTC) reply
Point of information – 500 feet is an awful lot closer than half a kilometre. Spinning Spark 12:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC) reply
Spinningspark - Doesn't change the basic point, does it? No reliable source says this place exists. FOARP ( talk) 14:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC) reply
Plainly, it does exist. The satellite view shows that. What we don't have is a reliable source for what it is called. Spinning Spark 14:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC) reply
Spinningspark - Plainly, there are some buildings (farm buildings? a factory?) at that location, and that is all that can be truthfully stated. There is nothing that passes any notability or verifiability guide this here Wiki has. Can you imagine having this discussion in any other area of Wikipedia content?
  • "There was definitely a film of some description released on that day, we just don't have a reliable source for what it was called, who was in it, or even what its content was"
  • "There was definitely a book published, we just don't have a reliable source for what it was called, who authored it, or what it was about"
  • "There is definitely a species living in that location, we just don't have a reliable source for what genus it belongs to, what its name is, or what its characteristics are"
  • "There's definitely a person with that birthday, we just don't know what their name is or who they are"
It's only in the GeoStub field that we get this kind of argument.
PS - worth noting that there is no corresponding FA wiki article, because FA wiki has been much more aggressive in cleaning up the stub articles that got transposed from EN Wiki to their wiki. A lot of the FA wiki editors got pretty annoyed at EN Wiki for continually keeping these articles about places that basically just don't exist, and they were the people who ultimately went to Carlossuarez46 and told him to stop. FOARP ( talk) 14:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC) reply
I agree my rationale is weak, but please don't misrepresent it. I think we do know the name of the settlement for the reason I gave, so your analogies are straw men. Spinning Spark 16:34, 18 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark ( talk) 03:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Weak Keep. There is mention of the village in a British botanical expedition to the region from the 1930's. The account can be found here: https://doi.org/10.2307/4107686
It seems to be near a fresh water lake which may also have some significance in its own right. I suspect a Persian speaker could find better sources on it. It's hard though because of the neighborhood in Tehran of the same name. Chagropango ( talk) 08:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
I'm not convinced it is the same place. The passage you are referring to is on page 66 I think: "The road to Teheran is followed for 25 miles, when the track leading to Astara bends to the left along the shores of the freshwater lake at Yusufabad". The starting point for this journey is Tabriz and Teheran is to the southeast (ie the wrong direction for our Yusefabad). Google maps shows a small lake, Quri Gol, at about that location (37.9207, 46.7026) whereas there does not seem to be any lakes anywhere near our Yusefabad. Spinning Spark 09:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
In fact, we already have an article on it, Yusefabad, Bostanabad, and it is shown on gmaps at the western edge of the lake. Spinning Spark 09:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
Not only is the place mentioned in this document likely not the same place we are talking about, but it is also not WP:SIGCOV but instead just a passing mention and therefore does not sustain a WP:GNG pass. It is also not evidence of legal recognition as a populated place required under WP:GEOLAND#1 - for the avoidance of doubt Iranian Abadis are not a class of legally-recognised populated place but isntead just reference points used in the Iranian census. Using satellite photos to come to the conclusion that a set of buildings not even at the location in the article, but merely close to it, are a village, and not instead a farm/factory or other set of buildings, is pure WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH.
I'll add in here that the problems with identifying where this place even is (the co-ords used above are not reliably sourced) are exactly why this kind of article should not be kept since they simply trash the information space as to what places exist where and under what name. FOARP ( talk) 12:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete with the same rationale as every single other one of these. — VersaceSpace 🌃 14:47, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    Also, if there's no known name for this "village", there should be no article on it. — VersaceSpace 🌃 14:50, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the rationales for keeping this are not consistent with core policies, specifically WP:V and WP:NOR. The verifiability policy says that we cannot have an article on something unless there are third-party reliable sources about it, and that the burden of proof for this is on those who want to keep the content. This is a non-negotiable policy which cannot be overidden by editorial judgement or local consensus. For a populated place, to satisfy this we need at minimum a reliable source which says the subject exists and is a populated place. The citations in the article are to unreliable sources, and the other evidence provided here is to GeoNames and OpenStreetMap (user-generated content, and therefore unreliable). Claims that the subject might exist because there is a nearby road with the same name are original research, which has no place in Wikipedia. Hut 8.5 14:12, 30 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails GEOLAND and V. Avilich ( talk) 13:34, 31 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Looks like a borderline case that might have a better chance at surviving a second AfD as an article about the class of locomotives. Sandstein 16:23, 3 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Geelong and Melbourne Railway Company 0-4-0T Ariel (1855)

Geelong and Melbourne Railway Company 0-4-0T Ariel (1855) (  | talk | history | 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 individual locomotive. There's nowhere near enough coverage of this locomotive for it to be notable or to even write a real article. Cites nothing but a single database. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 19:56, 10 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 19:56, 10 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    It is currently a stub for a class of locomotives (that contained only one of that type built). I'll look at expanding it into more of an article with more references in the next day or 2. -- ThylacineHunter ( talk) 06:10, 11 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    It seems to have been created hastily due to issues re Template talk:Victorian rolling stock#May 2022, and I was hoping to find time soon to pad it out with more information. -- ThylacineHunter ( talk) 06:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    I see. It was unclear to me that this was meant to represent a class of locomotive, not merely one particular locomotive. Locomotive classes are generally notable, individual locomotives that aren't preserved are seldom notable. Moving the article name as suggested on the article talk page would be a good solution. I haven't had a chance to check the sources today, but I'll look at them later and if they show the class meets GNG (decent chance this is the case) I will withdraw the AfD. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 18:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep - seems to be borderline but there appear to be newspaper articles supporting the locomotive class. Deus et lex ( talk) 06:27, 16 July 2022 (UTC) reply

I'm hoping to be able to get more information when I can get access to the Railway Archives (currently not easily accessible to the public). -- ThylacineHunter ( talk) 01:01, 18 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 23:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Comment It's a 150 yr old, small tank engine. Seems to be a "series" of one locomotive. Probably of some interest to those rail geeks (ie. me), but not sure it's wiki notable (EEEEEE I love it!!!!). Oaktree b ( talk) 23:25, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment It's the only vertical boiler locomotive in Victoria, Australia and the 2nd locomotive built in Victoria.-- ThylacineHunter ( talk) 00:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    Okay. I don't see how that changes anything. Wikipedia notability is based on significant coverage in reliable sources. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 00:36, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for now, to allow ThylacineHunter a chance to find sources. NemesisAT ( talk) 12:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Per the discussion above of this actually being a class of locomotives, perhaps it makes sense to draftify this, to allow ThylacineHunter to expand this as time allows. -- Kinu  t/ c 17:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply

We Dreamed our Dreams

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

The article does not establish notability, apart from being covered by a couple redlinked bands. Google doesn't have anything about it either. - Poydoo can talk and edit 23:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - no evidence of meeting the GNG, if it did, it would have to be a WP:TNT situation anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 00:05, 31 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Chah-e Akrami

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

Mass-created Iran geostub by User:Carlossuarez46. The name contains chah (چاه, well), and the geocoordinates go to a subdivision of Yazd called Akramiyeh ( Persian: اکرمیه). Not sure if this subdivision meets WP:NGEO. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 22:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 22:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Fails WP:GEOLAND#1, WP:GNG. Not a populated legally-recognised community but instead just a reference point used in the census. And honestly, LaundryPizza03 we should just delete all of the "Chah" Iranian village stubs, since they all likely are just wells used as reference points in the census - here's a search that shows that there's about 300 of them, all of them stubs, all sourced to GEONet Names Server and/or the Iranian Census (both unreliable sources for whether a place is a legally recognised populated place). WP:BUNDLE is appropriate in the case of a single editor creating near-identical failing hoax/spam articles, wand that is surely the case here. FOARP ( talk) 09:02, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Truenose

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

All of the sources are from early/mid April this year. They all read like press releases, which can't be used for notability, and none are independent coverage of the subject. Company fails WP:NCORP. ~Styyx Talk? 22:16, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:42, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

AVADirect

AfDs for this article:
AVADirect (  | talk | history | 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 independent sourcing that is in-depth. Contenr derived from Press Releases was removed prior to AfD, so check history. Do see some coverage in Maximum PC but appears to be passing mentions only. Fails WP:NCORP Slywriter ( talk) 22:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

AMAX Information Technologies

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

A decade of adding Press Releases to an article. When the press releases are removed, no actual sourcing remains. Please check history for article before Press releases were removed. A WP:BEFORE doesn't show any significant coverage in books or papers nor news. Fails WP:NCORP Slywriter ( talk) 22:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Pan-Indian film

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

Proposing the article for deletion due to the fact that the subject is highly opinionated and biased. What constitutes pan indian film the information is already available in those specific movie article. No such movement started since 2015. Fostera12 ( talk) 14:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

The following independent reliable sources sources present significant coverage about the topic in hand:
  1. The 'pan-Indian' strategy of Telugu cinema Srivastan S, The Hindu (7 January 2022)
  2. Baahubali turns 5: How SS Rajamouli’s film changed Indian cinema forever: Manoj Kumar R , Gabbeta Ranjith Kumar, The Indian Express (11 July 2018)
  3. Allu Arjun’s Pushpa shows Telugu films have pan-India audience. Step aside, Bollywood Nidhima Taneja. The Print (16 January 2022)
  4. RRR, Pushpa, Liger, Radhe Shyam, Adipurush: Are pan India films the way forward? Juhi Chakraborty, The Hindustan Times (23 April 2021)
  5. New mantra for pan-India stories Prakash Pecheti, Telangana Today (17 June 2021)
  6. BigStory: Are pan-India films promoting too much violence? Bharti Dubey and Hemachandra Ethamukkala, The Times of India (23 April 2022)
"highly opinionated and biased" is not valid rationale for deletion. We write articles based on independent reliable sources. If such sources are opinionated and biased, then the same is reflected in the article. -- Ab207 ( talk) 08:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep No need of deletion as article is full of reliable sources. And all the films in it are notable. Deepika o ( talk) 15:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep It is evident that the term/film movement received wide recognition in the media and the critics. Also, there are plenty of sources that solely covers the topic. Jayanthkumar123 ( talk) 16:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: If the article seems opinionated and biased perhaps pursuing NPOV edits would be a better route to take than deletion. Chagropango ( talk) 07:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - NPOV is not a great reason for deleting an article on its own, especially when notability appears met and there is a better version restored. MaxnaCarta ( talk) 13:02, 30 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Multiple people proposed a redirect, and that remains an option which could be carried out by anyone. I am closing this as Keep, meaning Keep or Redirect, because there was no sentiment at all for Delete. MelanieN ( talk) 03:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Ruth Joffre

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

BLP doesn't seem to meet WP:NBIO - independent coverage is largely focussed on the book (Night Beast) rather than the individual. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:21, 9 July 2022 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn, thanks to the improvements made by CT55555 and Beccaynr. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:23, 9 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  1. https://coloradoreview.colostate.edu/reviews/night-beast/
  2. https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/ruth-joffre/night-beast/
  3. https://blog.pshares.org/night-beast-and-other-stories-by-ruth-joffre/
  4. https://mastersreview.com/book-review-night-beast-ruth-joffre/
Links to other reviews are here: https://bookmarks.reviews/reviews/all/night-beast-and-other-stories/
I have edited the article to mention her other books writing, and to include biographical information so that it is no longer just focussed on one book. CT55555 ( talk) 11:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC) reply
CT55555, Joffre does not appear to have written other books beyond her debut collection of short stories; her website indicates she has had other writings included in anthologies - does this seem like an accurate way to describe what you are referring to as "other books"? Beccaynr ( talk) 23:47, 9 July 2022 (UTC) reply
My bad, yes, I should have said "publications" I think they are not books. I've corrected it now. Also, I've avoided commenting on our different interpretations of meeting WP:AUTHOR as we see it differently, and I think that's OK, I think the discussion you linked to showed me there are different valid ways to interpret the criteria. Peace. CT55555 ( talk) 05:50, 10 July 2022 (UTC) reply
I think the discussion linked below that you started indicates that multiple reviews for one book with no indications that the work is significant or well-known, and no other basis to support notability means that a redirect to the book is supported by the guidelines. You had asked for feedback from other editors on this topic, and I created an article about the book, removed the redundant material from this article, and it now seems apparent that it is WP:TOOSOON for this article to be supported at this time. Beccaynr ( talk) 06:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Subject meets Wikipedia notability guidelines, with enough reviews and coverage to prove notability.-- SouthernNights ( talk) 14:36, 9 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Night Beast (short story collection). After a search online and at the WP library, I started an article for the book because it appears notable per WP:NBOOK, but there does not appear to be sufficient support for WP:BASIC or WP:AUTHOR notability for Joffre at this time. I have not found support for the first part of WP:AUTHOR#3, because I have not found reviews for other works nor indications that her debut collection of short stories is significant or well-known. I included two interviews in the book article, but these do not appear to have sufficient secondary content to support WP:BASIC notability. This article includes a self-published profile for biographical information and links to her own work (and there are more available at the WP library) in addition to the Night Beasts reviews, and it appears to be WP:TOOSOON for an article about Joffre at this time. Beccaynr ( talk) 20:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    This is not an essay, but I think this recent discussion at WT:AFD helps support my reasoning on how to interpret the WP:AUTHOR guideline for this author at this time: WP:AUTHOR is two decent book reviews enough? If additional secondary coverage about her and/or her collection of works is available to support this article, I will reconsider my !vote. Beccaynr ( talk) 21:03, 9 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    I found another interview and incorporated it into the book article: A Seattle writer on girlhood, 'queer sadness' and speculative fiction ( Crosscut.com 2020) but I think more secondary support is needed for an author article at this time. A redirect preserves the article history and will allow this article to be further developed when her notability is more clearly supported per WP:BASIC or WP:AUTHOR. Also, from my view, indications of a significant or well-known work could include winning a notable award, appearing on bestseller lists, receiving wide attention from national and/or international media, as well as other indications suggested by editors in the above-cited discussion. Beccaynr ( talk) 15:00, 10 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I had closed this as Keep but was asked to relist this AFD discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:45, 18 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 20:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect per Beccaynr. Will allow for easy recreation if the author becomes more notable later... Eddie891 Talk Work 14:16, 4 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per Beccaynr/Eddie891 & close ASAP. There's no reason to keep this open. Let's move along. Buffs ( talk) 15:24, 4 August 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Steven Brust#Dragaera. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Dragaera

Dragaera (  | talk | history | 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 WP:SIGCOV in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, and so this does not meet Wikipedia's WP:NOTABILITY guideline. There are some trivial mentions that use this as the alternate name for the Khaavren Romances, but does not provide coverage of this topic separate from that. Jontesta ( talk) 19:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:35, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Legion in popular culture

AfDs for this article:
Legion in popular culture (  | talk | history | 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 WP:SIGCOV in reliable third party sources to met Wikipedia's WP:NOTABILITY guideline. The substance WP:INDISCRIMINATE with lots of use of the word "Legion" without having any WP:VERIFIABLE connection. Previously nominated for being WP:OR with the promise that it would be sourced, and it simply cannot be because sufficient sources don't exist. Jontesta ( talk) 19:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta ( talk) 19:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Another TV Tropes style list of non-notable trivia. There is no discussion of the concept as a whole, and no sources that would allow this to pass WP:LISTN. The Keep votes in the previous AFD from 2010, which resulted in a no-consensus, were simple WP:ITSNOTABLE arguments, that would not really fly today. While the actual Legion (demons) article is pretty short and could probably stand to have some expansion on the topic of its impact on culture, there is nothing from this mess of a list that should actually be kept or merged. Rorshacma ( talk) 19:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 20:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete. The only thing most of these entries have in common is the word. Those I bothered to check had nothing to do with the biblical Legion. Clarityfiend ( talk) 20:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Typical TVTropes nonsense. If the topic has any potential at all, it's not going to be found here. TNT and start from scratch as prose in the main article. TTN ( talk) 22:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Honestly, the majority of the entries in this list have nothing to do with the stated topic. Instead, it is an indiscriminate collection of fictional groups and beings that have referred to themselves as "Legion". Furthermore, the vast majority of it is uncited. There is nothing worth preserving here. ― Susmuffin  Talk 23:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. There is a slight chance this can be a proper article, but WP:TNT applies to the current mess that fails WP:LISTN and WP:IPC. Wikipedia articles should be "lists of media that mention term X" (here, List of media in which Legion appears in or similar). Although it would be nice if we could figure out a way to transwiki stuff to TVTropes... (I am serious here). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:50, 31 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Lists. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:51, 31 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above reasoning. Any significant coverage of Legion's impact on popular culture should not take the form of a list but should appear on the article for the demon itself. Thanks for opening this AfD. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 16:57, 31 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Chah-e Reza, Kerman

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

Mass-created Iran geostub by User:Carlossuarez46. Name is of a well, and I'm not sure that the given coordinates are for a village. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 18:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 18:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete can’t we just mass delete his rubbish? Mccapra ( talk) 20:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Is this a legally recognised, populated place? No. It's name declares it to be a well, the source states it is an abadi (which is a class of locations that need not be populated and includes mere locations such as wells, pumps, petrol stations, farms, bridges, etc.). Therefore fails WP:GEOLAND#1, and also WP:GNG. We cannot do WP:OR based on satellite photos that could just as easily be showing a farm or something else, and even if it is a village, is it known by the name used in the article? Very likely not. Including GEONames Net Server as an additional source does not solve this problem as that also is an unreliable source.
Completely second Mccapra on this - all of these "well" articles should just be bundled up per WP:BUNDLE. FOARP ( talk) 09:24, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Evan Dorkin. North America 1000 06:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Milk & Cheese

Milk & Cheese (  | talk | history | 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 WP:SIGCOV on this topic to meet Wikipedia's WP:NOTABILITY guideline. Sources reveal trivial mentions referring to the author Evan Dorkin but nothing significant enough to create a reliable and substantial article about this particular work. Jontesta ( talk) 18:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect to The Magical Monarch of Mo. Sandstein 12:57, 4 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Mo (Oz)

Mo (Oz) (  | talk | history | 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 WP:SIGCOV to meet Wikipedia's WP:NOTABILITY guideline. There are trivial mentions, but nothing to build an article that is WP:NOT just plot details. Cannot be improved because there is no significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources that can provide out-of-universe context. Jontesta ( talk) 18:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta ( talk) 18:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I was going to immediately suggest Redirecting this to The Magical Monarch of Mo, but then I realized that the actual title doesn't even make much sense for the Redirect, as the country isn't part of Oz. Regardless, this should not be a stand alone article, as there is not a single source included in the article, and searching for sources turns up no actual significant coverage of it in reliable sources. I have to say my favorite part of the article is the fact that it includes a picture of a map that the land is not even on, with the caption that it should be on there - I got a chuckle out of that. Rorshacma ( talk) 19:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or merge with The Magical Monarch of Mo. To the closer if the outcome is either merge or delete, I ask that you transfer the description of Mo to that page in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE even if you have to establish a settings section for it. -- Rtkat3 ( talk) 19:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep notable subject. WP:ATD Lightburst ( talk) 02:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a valid argument in AFDs, particularly for articles that don't have a single source actually backing up any claim of being a notable subject. Rorshacma ( talk) 02:15, 29 July 2022 (UTC) reply
Redirect to The Magical Monarch of Mo @ Rorshacma: You are probably right it was the kid in me that IARd, it is likely better redirected to the novel. The novel has much more relevance, File:Princess Truella on a stork - Project Gutenberg eText 16529.jpg File:King Mo fights the Purple Dragon - Project Gutenberg eText 16259.jpg. Some sources do exist, but it would be a stretch of our notability guideline to piece them together for this fictional land. It is certainly not as notable as the Frank Baum's other fictional Land of Oz. Lightburst ( talk) 04:03, 30 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Chah-e Chalehi

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

Mass-created Iran geostub by User:Carlossuarez46. Name is of a well, and there is no community at the given coordinates. PRODded, but quickly deprodded because I added the wrong rationale. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 18:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 18:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all the ludicrous and dishonestly created rubbish from this editor. Mccapra ( talk) 20:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Fails WP:GEOLAND#1, fails WP:GNG, and even just responding to this has probably used 10-20 times more editor time that Carlossuarez46 used in creating it. FOARP ( talk) 09:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete — VersaceSpace 🌃 14:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Per all the above, and not meeting WP:GEOLAND MaxnaCarta ( talk) 13:06, 30 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I am unable to find evidence that this is the name of the community described in the article. Wells are not presumed notable under WP:GEOLAND. — Ⓜ️hawk10 ( talk) 00:35, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Robert Vaidlo. Liz Read! Talk! 23:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Rõmuuta

Rõmuuta (  | talk | history | 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 WP:SIGCOV in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, and so this does not meet the WP:NOTABILITY guideline. Jontesta ( talk) 18:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. There is consensus that the added sources are sufficient to showcase notability. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat ( talk) 23:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Time viewer

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

Couldn't find reliable secondary sources with WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:NOTABILITY guideline. There aren't reliable references to the concept of a "time viewer", making me concerned that this is an WP:OR compilation of concepts that an editor is subjectively comparing. (For example, a trivial mention from NASA that is referring to something very different from what the article purports to be about.) The only source is another online encyclopedia which isn't a reliable secondary source, and may be circularly pulling material from this WP:OR Wikipedia article. Jontesta ( talk) 18:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep in the newly rewritten form. Effectively, my vote is "delete" the old version per TNT (per reasons outlined by the nom applicable to the nominated version), with no prejudice to a rewrite, but with acknowledgement that the rewrite is already happening. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:42, 31 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as newly rewritten and extensively sourced by TompaDompa. A little too many redlinks for my taste, but it's now a good article on a demonstrably notable topic. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 20:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Per WP:HEY. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 14:51, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wireless configuration utility. Discussion had ended effectively with editors here making major changes to merge the article in question into Comparison of wireless LAN clients, and then followed up by a request to move the merged article to Wireless configuration utility. (non-admin closure) – robertsky ( talk) 07:17, 5 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Wireless connection management utility

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

Does not meet WP:SIGCOV. Cannot find this term in a reliable source. Kstern ( talk) 18:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Maybe it is better known under the name Wireless LAN client? We already have a Comparison of wireless LAN clients. I propose merging them. Petr Matas 20:44, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

I was bold and proceded with the merge, as the article in its current state was just good enough as an introduction to the Comparison of wireless LAN clients and no opposition to the merge seemed to arise. Petr Matas 04:47, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Should we rename the result now to remove the word comparison from its title? Some titles were proposed in the discussion above. Petr Matas 05:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Rename. In my opinion the intro is good enough for a stub and a comparison may be a part of a standard article. Petr Matas 05:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Rename I support the rename, given the changes to the original article in question and the resulting merge. Kstern ( talk) 14:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • I really don't know how to close this discussion since editors took it on themselves to not wait until it closed to make major changes in the article. Liz Read! Talk! 00:22, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    Give us some more time to discuss the new title and then close it as merge. 😉 Petr Matas 07:14, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Close as merge and just note that the editors are making the necessary changes. There's no need to keep this open. Buffs ( talk) 15:26, 4 August 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 04:25, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Charles Elmore Cropley

Charles Elmore Cropley (  | talk | history | 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 do not think the clerk of the Supreme Court is the level of position that makes someone notable. He is a low level background figure who has no actual government role. The coverage we have here is a listing from the Supreme Court itself of all administrative officers, an article that mentions him getting married, in a large set of such announcements that I do not think confers notability on any, and a news article on him dropping a bible during a presidential inauguration. This is just not enough to justify an article in Wikipedia John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. The Clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court (not to be confused with the law clerks) is the Court's most important statutory officer, and the OP's assertion that the Clerk "has no actual government role" is not true. We rightly have articles on many of the people who have held that office, and should aspire to develop ones on the others. This is obviously far from the most important judiciary-related biography in the encyclopedia, but is has a purpose, and there is no value in the idea of deleting it. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per above Andrevan @ 21:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:42, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Chah-e Allahdad

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

Mass-created Iran geostub by User:Carlossuarez46. Name is of a well, but there is something at the provided coordinates that could be a village. I removed unsourced content about an alleged murder that contained dubious information (The prime suspect behind the bodies is Wanye Al-ballshar[...] [who] uncovered the bodies; the population has declined by 2 million") and was accompanied by an image generated by This Person Does Not Exist. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 18:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 18:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Is this a legally recognised, populated place? No. It's name declares it to be a well, the source states it is an abadi (which is a class of locations that need not be populated and includes mere locations such as wells, pumps, petrol stations, farms, bridges, etc.). Therefore fails WP:GEOLAND#1, and also WP:GNG. We cannot do WP:OR based on satellite photos that could just as easily be showing a farm or something else, and even if it is a village, is it known by the name used in the article? Very likely not. Including GEONames Net Server as an additional source does not solve this problem as that also is an unreliable source. FOARP ( talk) 09:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: even if this is a village, it's almost impossible to verify whether or not it goes by this name. — VersaceSpace 🌃 14:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:36, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Chah-e Alam

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

Mass-created Iran geostub by User:Carlossuarez46. Name is of a well, but there is something at the given coordinates that could be a village. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 18:24, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 18:24, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Is this a legally recognised, populated place? No. It's name declares it to be a well, the source states it is an abadi (which is a class of locations that need not be populated and includes mere locations such as wells, pumps, petrol stations, farms, bridges, etc.). Therefore fails WP:GEOLAND#1, and also WP:GNG. We cannot do WP:OR based on satellite photos that could just as easily be showing a farm or something else, and even if it is a village, is it known by the name used in the article? Very likely not. Including GEONames Net Server as an additional source does not solve this problem as that also is an unreliable source. FOARP ( talk) 09:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Chah-e Akhundshafi

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

Mass-created Iran geostub by User:Carlossuarez46. Name is of a well, but there is something at the given coordinates that could be a village. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 18:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 18:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Is this a legally recognised, populated place? No. It's name declares it to be a well (according to Google Translate "Mullah Shafi's well"), the source states it is an abadi (which is a class of locations that need not be populated and includes mere locations such as wells, pumps, petrol stations, farms, bridges, etc.). Therefore fails WP:GEOLAND#1, and also WP:GNG. We cannot do WP:OR based on satellite photos that could just as easily be showing a farm or something else, and even if it is a village, is it known by the name used in the article? Almost certainly not. Including GEONames Net Server as an additional source does not solve this problem as that also is an unreliable source. FOARP ( talk) 09:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no evidence of GEOLAND Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Previous AFD concerned a different version of this page...this article was moved to this title after disambiguation page was deleted. Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Chah-e Ahmad

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

Mass-created Iran geostub by User:Carlossuarez46. Name is of a well, but there is something at the provided coordinates that could be a village. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 18:18, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment The prior AfD was for a disambiguation page with 1 entry. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 21:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Is this a legally recognised, populated place? No. It's name declares it to be a well, the source states it is an abadi (which is a class of locations that need not be populated and includes mere locations such as wells, pumps, petrol stations, farms, bridges, etc.). Therefore fails WP:GEOLAND#1. We cannot do WP:OR based on satellite photos that could just as easily be showing a farm or something else, and even if it is a village, is it known by the name used in the article? Almost certainly not. FOARP ( talk) 09:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Chah-e Bid, Rudbar-e Jonubi

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

Mass-created Iran geostub by User:Carlossuarez46. Name is of a well, but there is something at the provided coordinates that could be a village. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 18:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 18:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Is this a legally recognised, populated place? No. It's name declares it to be a well, the source states it is an abadi (which is a class of locations that need not be populated and includes mere locations such as wells, pumps, petrol stations, farms, bridges, etc.). Therefore fails WP:GEOLAND#1. We cannot do WP:OR based on satellite photos that could just as easily be showing a farm or something else, and even if it is a village, is it known by the name used in the article? Almost certainly not. FOARP ( talk) 09:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:51, 29 July 2022 (UTC) reply

AVL (engineering company)

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

Advertisement, no Reliable sources needed per WP:NCORP Assirian cat ( talk) 15:17, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Kings and Princes of Wales

Kings and Princes of Wales (  | talk | history | 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 recently created article mashes together unnecessarily two longstanding already existing articles: King of Wales and Prince of Wales. They are in fact two different topics. "King of Wales" was a very specific title used once in the 11th century. "Prince of Wales" had a very different usage on an ongoing basis from the 13th century. This article is at the same time unnecessary because of the two pre-existing articles and artificial. It's not a real topic. DeCausa ( talk) 17:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

This is a perfectly justified complete list of the rulers of Wales. It lists all the rulers of "Wales", which neither King of Wales nor Prince of Wales does.
The titles used are very varied and can't be split simply into "King" or "Prince". Multiple rulers claimed both titles among other titles, there is no clear-cut line. The title name gradually evolved but the function of the ruler was broadly the same.
Examples of varied titles:
Rhodri the Great: "began to reign over the Welsh" (843 AD)
Gruffydd ap Cynan: "king and sovereign and prince and defender and pacifier of all the Welsh" (in 1136)
Owain Gwynedd: Prince over the British nation (in 1146), King of Wales, King of the Welsh, Prince of the Welsh
Rhys ap Gruffydd: Head of all Wales (in 1197), Prince of the Welsh (in 1184), Prince of Wales
Changing the title of the page to "List of the Rulers of Wales" could be a potential option. Titus Gold ( talk) 17:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • They are not "rulers of Wales". They are rulers of part of Wales who adopted a title, either "king of Wales" in one instance or "Prince of Wales". The other examples given are spurious misuses of WP:PRIMARY sources - one of references to rulers of part of Wales. List of rulers of Wales already exists as well. DeCausa ( talk) 17:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and Rename per Titus Gold. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk) 17:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: The page List of rulers in Wales already exists. This whole shiskabob is pointless. Merge wherever, but otherwise it is pointless to have another list which covers the same topics. Curbon7 ( talk) 17:37, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    Rulers of Wales is about ALL the regional rulers of Kingdoms of Gwynedd, Deheubarth etc. and minor princes within Wales @ Curbon7, not the Prince or Kings of Wales. Would you mind having a detailed look at both pages before reconsidering that suggestion please? Titus Gold ( talk) 18:11, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    In reply to the previous question, "King or Prince of Wales titleholders" or "Native Kings and Princes of Wales'" could be options. The sources are translations of the original and yes would not hurt from further citation with additional sources.
    I would point out that King of the Britons only uses primary sources because additional sources are scarce. Many of them are cited as ruling all of Wales.
    I've renamed the regional rulers as Rulers of Welsh kingdoms as it is a more apt title. Titus Gold ( talk) 18:37, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • I've reverted that article back to the original longstanding name. It's an artificial move to support your objective here. that article is about any ruler in Wales not just the ruler of a "kingdom". The reality is that none of the rulers you want to put into this article can be differentiated. They are not "ruling all of Wales" except one or two in momentary instances. This is a POV exercise to support a nationalist contention, unsupported by secondary sources. DeCausa ( talk) 19:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    Please don't accuse me of having certain political beliefs, that's quite inappropriate. The commonality is that they have all have been described as Prince or King of Wales as per the title. My significant interest in Welsh history is my motivation. The name change was to better differentiate between the pages, quite obviously.
    I repeat: King of the Britons uses primary sources only because secondary sources are hard to come by for some ancient rulers. Regardless, you'll be pleased to hear that I have now added additional secondary citations that list the vast majority of the Kings and princes. I've also added a cited section explaining the general evolution of the title from King to Prince. Please feel free to have a look and suggest further improvements.
    Another alternative is to merge as suggested by @ Curbon7. King of Wales would probably be the most appropriate merger page. Titus Gold ( talk) 20:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Also, a duplicate of List of rulers of Wales. Peter Ormond 💬 13:05, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - as the "prince of Wales" isn't a monarch & Wales isn't an independent country. The title is held by the 'heir apparent' to the British throne & 14 other Commonwealth thrones. PS - When the time comes (due to the 2011 Acts, enacted in 2015), it'll be interesting to see what title a female heir-apparent will get. GoodDay ( talk) 15:13, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    I will copy relevant content over to King of Wales since there is a majority for deleting. Could someone else go ahead and delete Kings and Princes of Wales after I've done this then, please? Titus Gold ( talk) 12:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, though a selective merge of some information into the quite sparse List of rulers of Wales might not go amiss. But, while there were very famous and powerful Welsh princes in medieval history, this new article does appear to be a confusing mash-up. Sionk ( talk) 12:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    Ok, I've moved relevant content over ready for deleting the article. Titus Gold ( talk) 14:36, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The kings and princes of Wales were essentially rulers of the country, in other words the princes were sovereigns and the title was not honorary the way it is today. This is covered in detail at List of rulers of Wales, so I don't know why we need to create duplicates. Keivan.f Talk 11:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    Does someone want to go ahead with the deletion then? Think we've had enough input now. Titus Gold ( talk) 13:44, 29 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    There might be people who could actually be supportive of the idea. You never know. Also, if there's enough substance for an article and a list, then the splitting can be justified. But thus far, it hasn't been in my opinion. Keivan.f Talk 14:24, 29 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Elyzabeth Purwaningtyas

Elyzabeth Purwaningtyas (  | talk | history | 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:NBAD, lacks SIGCOV in reliable sources; not enough to satisfy WP:GNG . zoglophie 15:31, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Adv Ravi Vyas

Adv Ravi Vyas (  | talk | history | 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:NPOL never won any state or national election. TheWikiholic ( talk) 15:17, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Hi! The person has won election a few times, and I have mentioned the sources as well. You can find his name in official gov website https://www.mbmc.gov.in/en/corporator-info/ Under this article as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diveshksharmaofficial ( talk • contribs) 06:09, 30 July 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Harbor Real Estate

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

Seems to lack notability by WP criteria — billinghurst sDrewth 14:31, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

but…but… they’re active in the Dubai Chamber of Commerce! Does this count for nothing!?!?! Mccapra ( talk) 20:17, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete and they did a study!!! (Harbor Real Estate published a study in October 2009 showing that 61% of consumers who bought property in the years 2008 and 2009 were dissatisfied with the performance of real estate agents who brokered their purchases.). Puff piece. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
And they can't spell harbour. I'm the first boy to stick up for a Dubai article. I'll fight dragons to save any decent Emirates content, God knows we have few enough editors. Not this one. Oh, no. Not this one. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 05:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
American spelling? Oaktree b ( talk) 12:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
Yes, but it don't stop me teasing. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 12:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per WP:G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion). ( non-admin closure) Ovinus ( talk) 20:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Toriqul Islam Tusher

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

Promo piece (likely autobio) on a non-notable business person. Sources cited are just regurgitations of the same publicity material, and a search finds nothing that comes close to RS sigcov. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ANYBIO. Previously speedied, hence this AfD. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 14:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

MediBuddy

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

Promo piece on a non-notable business. Sources cited are all pure churnalism, and a search finds nothing beyond the usual directory listings, social media accounts, etc., none of which comes even close to providing RS sigcov. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ORGCRIT. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 14:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Sorry for inconvenience But i included all the valid citations in the Page. Yes, accidently i took it from draft, but it was an incident. as i was working on live page instead of draft. सार्थक उपाध्याय ( talk · contribs)

  • Delete Press-releases and the like, non-substantial, non-reliable coverage. Delete. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, Medibuddy is a well-known healthcare provider in India. I'm from India and know this company very well. Amitabh Bacchan is the brand ambassador of this company and it was founded in 2013. [1] You can search about this on google India and get a reliable source. The sources attached in the article are trustable and reliable. Gyankalekha ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ Srivastava, Moulishree (2015-12-23). "Medi Assist invests $1 mn in Mobiefit". mint. Retrieved 2022-07-27.
  • Your attached reference seems to be a bare-mention in an article that is mostly about the parent company. Please present your best WP:THREE refs to show that this article meets WP:SIGCOV. - MPGuy2824 ( talk) 08:13, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    Brand ambassadors don't help with notability, we need extensive coverage of the company. Oaktree b ( talk) 13:36, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I'm unable to locate any references which meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing ++ 21:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawing my nomination given that nobody other than myself as nom recommends deletion and it appears voters are not changing their mind - hence it is unlikely an outcome other than keep will be made. Please ping me on my talk page if any issues. Thanks. (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarta ( talk) 03:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Schloss Gobelsburg

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

Advertising masquerading as article, unfortunately not clearly enough for me to confidentiality nominate as G11. Has been tagged as advertising for 13 years without improvement. Also woefully lacking in notability and so does not meet WP:NCORP. As no editing can overcome a lack of notability in the absence of meeting another criteria, a clear case for delete. MaxnaCarta ( talk) 12:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep. The sources that were in the article weren't sufficient to prove notability, but a very brief Google search brought up multiple instances of significant coverage, some of which I've added. MaxnaCarta, when you find an article with sources that don't seem to prove notability, before AfDing it, do a WP:BEFORE. You're correct that editing can't overcome a notability issue, but sources can. valereee ( talk) 14:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Snow Keep The sources are legion. The Falstaff link cited in the article's broken, here's the actual link. Grief, the Google Books links alone are, on the first page, enough to get across GNG three times over. Yes, the article sounds promotional, but that's editing, not AfDing... Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 15:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    Weird, the other link works for me, and this one comes up as a separate one. valereee ( talk) 17:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply
I did do a before check. I don’t think that trivial references in a wine magazine are sufficient enough for a Wikipedia article. Which of these do you feel constitutes sigcov? Please do not assume I didn’t do a before check. Thanks. MaxnaCarta ( talk) 21:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment In light of the Keep submissions, I decided to examine my nomination again. I will concede that there are some sources available. One of my back-end hobbies on Wikipedia is to go through the articles tagged as promotional. Given there are tens of thousands, I tend to be selective with nominating for deletion, be it PROD, CSD, or AFD. This is because the project will never make a dent in the backlog if I did this, as each still needs to be reviewed and there is nothing worse than having mass amounts of articles nominated indiscriminately. After looking at the sources available, I probably could have just edited the language of the article to improve its tone, as I do for most of the promotional maintenance tags I seek to remove, and left it at that. While it would have been easier to just leave the article without nominating, now I have nominated I see no reason to close as Keep yet. If you look through my rather extensive AFD log, you will notice I frequently change my !vote from Delete to Keep and vice versa, based on evidence. On this occasion, I am confident in allowing my nomination to stand as delete for now, unless evidence demonstrating my source assessment below is incorrect. Based on the below source assessment table, which is comprised of an example of sources from Google books, news, and the article itself - I am not seeing significant appropriate depth of coverage to justify inclusion. The coverage mentioned is invariably trivial. Granted, there are almost endless trivial mentions of the company, however this is not sufficient to establish notability. I still do not see any deep or significant coverage providing discussion, commentary, or evaluation of the company. I therefore do not believe it is possible to write a complete or in-depth article about this winery without using inappropriate sources or original research. MaxnaCarta ( talk) 08:39, 20 July 2022 (UTC) reply
Source Significant? Independent? Reliable? Secondary? Pass/Fail Notes
Parkers Wine Buyers Guide Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Single paragraph in a wine buyer's guide. This is not significant coverage. Does not address subject in detail.
Caldron Magazine Red XN Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Red XN This is an opinion piece about wine generally that does not address the subject in significant detail.
A to Z of an Alcoholic Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Just listing in a directory of wineries.
Riesling Rediscovered Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Trivial mentions, does not address subject in detail
Gobelsburg Red XN Red XN Red XN Green tickY Red XN Sales website listing products
Real Review Red XN Red XN Red XN Green tickY Red XN Just listing the companies existence in a sentence or two, not a reliable source
Wine-Searcher Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Green tickY Red XN Blogs are not reliable sources. This is a review blog site and place to buy wine. Not a reliable source suitable for an encyclopaedia,
Falstaff Red XN Green tickY
Green tickY
Green tickY Red XN This source may pass most criteria, but again this source is almost entirely about wine and not the company itself. It does not address the subject in significant detail either. There is little within the article that can then be verified by this source. It is a review of a wine made, not a detailed profile of the business itself. There is nothing wrong with including a source like this, but I do not think it goes towards notability.
Wine and Spirits Red XN Green tickY
Green tickY
Green tickY Red XN Most of this article focuses on the CEO, and does not provide deep overview, commentary, or discussion of the company.
Total qualifying sources 0
There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements


  • Comment This article is about an 850-year-old vineyard and winery with documented history to 1171. That's an exceptionally credible claim to notability. It's fine to argue that better/more sources are needed, and to tag the article for such, but the likelihood of such a subject not being notable is extremely low. valereee ( talk) 13:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I had hoped to avoid this timesuck. Here's Parker's Wine Buyer's Guide - the 7th Edition. and here's a full page feature - in depth coverage - in CaLDRON Magazine (BTW, Caldron identifies Schloss Gobelsburg as 'one of the oldest wineries in Austria'). NOW, here's almost a full page dedicated to the winery in the book Riesling Rediscovered: Bold, Bright, and Dry By John Winthrop Haeger while 'The Wine Bible' gives a couple of pages to Schloss Gobelsburg, calling its wines 'exquisitely intense, shockingly pure rieslings and grüner veltliners'. Let's turn to Stuart Pigott's book, Best White Wine on Earth: The Riesling Story, where we learn that Schloss Gobelsburg was at the apogee of its fame in the 1960s, when it made wines for the Cistercian Abbey of Zwettl. I'll skip over revered wine writer Oz Clarke's FIVE books that mention Schloss Gobelsburg, and neglect to highlight 'Hugh Johnson's Pocket Wine'. Let's look at Jason Wilson's travelogue through wine producers, 'Godforsaken Grapes: A Slightly Tipsy Journey Through the World of Strange, Obscure, and Underappreciated Wine' which talks to how Russian soldiers looted wine from Schloss Gobelsburg during the War. Dammit - the wine even slides sinuously into the pages of 'Killing Eve'. No doubt there are those who would cavil, saying these are mere 'listings' in 'directories', but they're wrong. There are pages and pages dedicated to this famous, notable and celebrated winery. There's almost no serious wine guide or writer that touches Riesling that does not cover Schloss Gobelsburg - with many telling the story of the winery, the oldest winery in the Danube region, with a documented history back to 1171, its charismatic owner and his dedication to making the finest of wines. Not notable? Do me a lemon. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 13:49, 20 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow more comment on whether sources already identified show notability and/or if there are other sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk) 13:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep one of its wines is reviewed in this guardian piece, Austrian press coverage here and here and innumerable entries into wine publications. Mccapra ( talk) 20:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    Please can you show me where my source assessment table is incorrect or show me your own? I haven’t denied some sourcing exists, I just don’t think it’s significant coverage. MaxnaCarta ( talk) 22:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ MaxnaCarta, so you're tripling down, here. Okay. Relying on an online source assessment for a subject that is this old doesn't make sense. You have to balance it with some common sense. Is it even possible, much less likely, that a subject that has an 850-year documented history isn't notable? The fact you haven't found that documented history online doesn't mean it doesn't exist. What are the actual chances that a subject that was first mentioned in 1171 isn't notable? 1171. Almost no one was keeping records then. 99.9% of people didn't know how to write. But someone, in 1171, thought it was worth writing down that there was a vineyard and winery at this place. And someone kept those records. It's practically the definition of 'likely notable'. Again, it's reasonable to tag it for sources. But tripling down on AfD? No. Valereee ( talk) 01:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Valereee How am I tripling down? I change my AFD vote all the time. I loathe digging in. This is a discussion, and that's all I am engaging in. It's coming up to the seven days and I am just asking for someone to demonstrate significant coverage. I am not being stubborn in the face of evidence my argument for deletion is blatantly incorrect. I've speedy kept my own nomination before. I disagree that this is an obvious case. I have no ideology when it comes to AFD, and I am asking for a dialogue rather than being told I am "digging in" or that my nomination is a "time suck". If it gets closed as keep, I don't care. I'm trying to learn also. Assume I am here for that reason rather than simply trying to stubbornly argue and "triple down". Please point to a policy that states something old "must have sources" and therefore that is an argument for keep. Regardless of age, we still need appropriate sources to demonstrate notability and I do not see them. If closing admin agrees with the other votes, that is perfectly okay with me. MaxnaCarta ( talk) 01:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Arion Sulemani

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 12:37, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep it, will be a key player soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nzs9 ( talk • contribs) 05:05, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Move to draftspace doesn't look to pass WP:GNG, but is a young player who may well achieve more and get more coverage soon. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 07:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, I could find no secondary sources from a search, and there are none in the article. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 02:21, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

John Ralph Anstee

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

Poorly sourced article on non-notable person; lists (without citing) only two sources, both of which are authored by the subject himself, and a search finds nothing even approaching RS sigcov. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ANYBIO. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 12:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Australia. DoubleGrazing ( talk) 12:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Nice looking chap, not in any way notable. WP:NOTMEMORIAL and doesn't pass WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 12:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete agree with all above. Poorly formatted article, looks like it was copied from another location and plunked here. Oaktree b ( talk) 13:28, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. XtraJovial ( talk • contribs) 13:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Terrible article of course, but he was an Officer of the Order of Australia. I think this probably qualifies per WP:ANYBIO #1. Note that it is almost certainly higher than the OBE, closer to a CBE, which we have generally considered to qualify. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:06, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    Never knew that CBE makes one inherently notable per ANYBIO. Live and learn... DoubleGrazing ( talk) 10:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    It certainly has usually been held to. User:Necrothesp/List of AfD discussions for individuals with a CBE or above. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:41, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    However, Anstee was awarded Officer of the Order of Australia, while CBE is Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire - a rank above officer, OBE. And he is not otherwise notable/presumed notable, which may/probably played a role in those CBE nominations? Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 10:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    As I've already said above, the Order of the British Empire (which has six grades) and the Order of Australia (which has four) are not directly equivalent. An AO, the second highest grade of the Order of Australia, is probably more equivalent to a CBE, the third highest grade of the Order of the British Empire, than an OBE, the fourth highest. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:44, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:BASIC, the presumption of notability of being one of the 3,453 awardees of the 3rd rank of the Order of Australia is just that, a presumption, BASIC still needs to be satisfied. Mztourist ( talk) 05:56, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) –– FormalDude talk 03:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Suraj Patel

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

Semi-procedural nomination: Articles about this apparently-perennial candidate have been brought to AfD 2 times already (the first AfD is about an unrelated subject who shares the name), and each time the consensus has been deletion due to lack of coverage other than routine election press. The same can be said of the level of coverage this time around as well. The argument could be made that the amassed coverage across the elections adds up to GNG, but I think this needs to be brought to community attention given the number of times the article has been discussed. signed, Rosguill talk 01:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and New York. signed, Rosguill talk 01:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    Previous AfDs aside, Patel is now competing in a radically redrawn congressional district. The two other competitors are both powerful Democrats of long standing - Jerry Nadler and Carolyn Maloney. Patel's campaign ads are more visible than theirs [at least to this resident of the district]. Finally, in the 2020 Democratic primary, Patel achieved 39.3% to Maloney's 42.7% [6]. Whether or not he wins, he is not inconsequential. Tedency ( talk) 13:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    Under no circumstances should this be deleted, it provides valuable nominee information, and not winning the prior primaries should have no bearing on this, I would suggest that it's removal is being discussed
    due to political competition reasons, flagged by said adversaries. 79.68.229.172 ( talk) 17:42, 16 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Nothing notable, seems to enjoy running for election, hardly enough on which to base an article here. Oaktree b ( talk) 19:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, appears to have a number of real references. Andrevan @ 23:58, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Quite apart from the fact he hasn't been elected, he fails WP:NPOL - even being serially unelected. That's the trouble with democracy - you don't get elected, youse is nobody. There's no other grounds for notability I can see. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 13:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    Notability is determined by coverage in reliable sources. Perennial candidates who never win can be still notable sometimes. Andrevan @ 22:02, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - WP:NPOL specifically states that unelected candidates can still be notable if they meet the GNG, which Patel does based on significant coverage from several reliable sources cited in the article, including the New York Times. Hatman31 ( talk) 21:41, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Per WP:GNG, a subject is presumed to be be suitable for a stand-alone article when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent. Coverage here from The Hill discusses the subject and their political campaign. This is hence what I consider to be significant coverage from a perennial source which has by consensus been found reliable. Same for this piece in the New York Times. A Google search shows further coverage from the NYT in the first page of results. Of significance is this coverage is only two weeks old, demonstrating the subject has been covered for a sustained period of time. There is countless examples of further significant coverage within the article and online, but as the sources shown already demonstrate a meeting of GNG there is no need to explain my assessment of these sources. Per WP:NPOL - being an unelected candidate does not guarantee notability, though such people can be notable if they meet GNG. As this individual undoubtedly meets GNG per the above, there is no tenable argument for deletion. MaxnaCarta ( talk) 07:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Femke ( talk) 15:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Federal Science and Technical College, Yaba

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

Secondary schools are not notable on there own and there is nothing else in the article to establish notability the article doesn't make note of anything notable but does provide sources to support some basic information about the school. See this discussion for the deletion of other articles that follow this same format. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Federal_Government_College,_Ganye. Not sure if this is important or not but it appears that these articles were made as part of a contest with gift cards as prizes. Previous articles from this contest were deleted Federal Government College, Ohafia and Federal Government Girls College, Zaria. This might explain why so many of these articles were produced so quickly. Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝) 07:23, 12 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep — I’ve been staying away from this mass deleting contest between you and Mccapra without doing a proper search. I have been able to find sources about the school (crisis, achievements et cetra) without stressing it.
Adediran, Ifeoluwa (10 September 2019). "Parents at Nigerian college kick as PTA 'imposes' N50,000 hostel fee". Premium Times. Retrieved 13 July 2022.
Nnaike, Uchechukwu (30 June 2022). "FSTC Principal Seeks More Involvement of Parents in Students' Security". ThisDay. Retrieved 13 July 2022.
Abayomi, Amaka (29 October 2015). "Accommodation crisis rocks FSTC, Yaba". Vanguard. Retrieved 13 July 2022.

Ask me to provide more and I will; including books and government annual report. Best, R E A D I N G Talk to the Beans? 09:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Hey @ Reading Beans, before I nominated these articles I did look for sources. I do this for every AfD, PROD, and page patrol. That said it does appear that I missed a couple for this article. I went back and retraced the searches I used and was only able to find the sources that were already in the article. I was able to find your sources using a Google News search. I went back and checked the other articles that I nominated and wasn't able to find anything that wasn't a list, a dead link, or a passing mention. So most of these articles still don't satisfy WP:ORG. You're much more knowledgeable about this area than me and are much better at finding sources then I was. I know a lot about psychology and plants but not a lot about schools in Nigeria.
The way I see it we have some options here going forward with all these articles.
  • Proceed with the AfD for the articles that can't pass notability and keep the ones that can.
  • Tag the current AfDs that we think might pass notability WP:NSCHOOL, withdraw the AfD from those articles and then send them to draft to be worked on.
  • Merge all the articles, including the previously deleted ones into one large article WP:NHS.
I promise I'm not trying to be a jerk and I genuinely thought that these articles (including this one) were eligible for AfD in part due to the mass deletion of all the other schools. If you have any other ideas for what we should do going forward I'm all ears. Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝) 00:15, 14 July 2022 (UTC) reply
Dr vulpes, I am a typist for a secondary school in Nigeria and during this exam period, I am usually busy and barely have time to find sources. All I ask for is for proper scrutinisation before nominating (we all make mistakes). Continue doing your great job. Best, R E A D I N G Talk to the Beans? 17:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC) reply
Reading Beans, for the articles that were PROD'd, you can request restoration at WP:REFUND should you find new references for these articles. Liz Read! Talk! 06:13, 15 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:31, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep There is not much content but that is not a reason to delete; the other articles were deleted but they were not all from the same sources. This was one of a group of proposed deletions I looked at and most of the sources were incidental mentions or related to incidents rather than coverage of the school; I did not object to most but opposed two - Federal Science and Technical College, Orozo (significant coverage enough to be taken to AFD instead of PROD, but only from one source) and this, with multiple significant sources which suggest that it is one of the more notable schools of its type. Peter James ( talk) 21:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Vanguard/Peter James. Let's close this one out. Buffs ( talk) 15:27, 4 August 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 00:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Fire and Ice (board game)

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

I was unable to find much RS on Google, News, Scholar, Books, and BGG besides a single ref that might not be reliable, and IMO it doesn't meet GNG. VickKiang ( talk) 07:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply

@ BOZ: Should the award be considered a ref to count towards GNG? It’s just borderline notable to have its own WP article, and Mensa is very well known, but each year there’s multiple winners? I’m not sure if it’s major enough to count towards one ref GNG, is there any article from Mensa mentioning this game? VickKiang ( talk) 21:55, 20 July 2022 (UTC) reply
Related current discussion: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Board_and_table_games/Sources#Notable_Games_Awards. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:29, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Based on the discussion on awards, I suppose the award counts as one ref for WP:GNG. But 2+ is needed (even at 2 it's very borderline), so still strongly support Delete. VickKiang ( talk) 04:53, 30 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Zurich University of the Arts. Liz Read! Talk! 04:19, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Swiss Design Institute for Finance and Banking

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

Nothing notable per WP:GNG Assirian cat ( talk) 11:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Gist Limited

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

Fails WP:NCORP/ WP:SIGCOV. Namedropping clients makes it seem a promotional article. Sources cited are routine business announcements. Kleuske ( talk) 10:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Transportation, and United Kingdom. Kleuske ( talk) 10:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: An article nominated for deletion 4 minutes after it was created, which seems too quick to consider whether it is appropriate, what alternatives exist, etc.? In this case, the article creation is presumably triggered by last week's sale announcement, but is basically copied from Linde_plc#Gist_Limited, so needs source attribution whether a distinct article is decided to be appropriate or not. AllyD ( talk) 10:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    • If no actual sources exist, WP:BEFORE can be done rather quickly. I did not know about the copy-issue, but it serves to illustrate lack of independent notability as a subsidiary. Kleuske ( talk) 11:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    This is true. Further improvements have been made since the article was created, as I considered the original sub-category to be lacking for Wiki. Darkieboy236 ( talk) 13:18, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    This has been further addressed with further improvements to the new page.
    This page should not be deleted. Adamtosek ( talk) 10:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Gist will soon change ownership, and therefore will be more or less irrelevant as a subsidiary of Linde plc. It will become a subsidiary of Marks & Spencer and may well again change ownership in the future, and therefore an independent article is more appropriate. I am currently adding to the article to improve it and further establish its importance and relevance. Darkieboy236 ( talk) 11:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    Agreed - an independent article is now appropriate following the recent news of company acquisition. Adamtosek ( talk) 10:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete You sort of lost me at "offers supply chain services including end-to-end management and customer fulfilment through transport and warehousing." to be honest. Add salient details of acquisition to Mars and Spencer, delete this promotional article about a WP:NORG failing company - job done. BTW, an entry exit solution is more elegantly a door. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 13:06, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    It is/was as per the sub-category on Linde plc. Darkieboy236 ( talk) 13:11, 26 July 2022 (UTC) Darkieboy236 ( talk) 11:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Sources lack independent content, so the subject doesn't meet WP:NCORP. ~Styyx Talk? 23:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    This has been addressed. I have removed content from previous page and made updated additions to this page. Adamtosek ( talk) 10:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Most of the attached stations look alike they are business directories or paid promotions And some citations are of their own website. Gyankalekha ( talk)
  • Delete The sources are failed to pass WP:NCORP, It is having funds related news or PR content. MickeyMouse143 ( talk) 09:24, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    References including the news agency Reuters and the financial publication Morning Star are cited. Darkieboy236 ( talk) 12:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete References that rely on PR or other announcements fail the criteria for establishing notability. Other references are PRIMARY sources. None of the references meet notability criteria, topic fails NCORP. HighKing ++ 17:07, 30 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 14:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ✗ plicit 11:34, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Marsha Levick

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

While her career is undoubtedly varied, celebrated and successful, Levick isn't notable per WP:GNG. As a lawyer she isn't a clear pass, certainly not under WP:NCORP neither as an adjunct professor under WP:NACADEMIC. Her list of awards must fill that wall nicely, but they don't help establish notability and, crucially, we lack "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 09:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, United States of America, and Pennsylvania. Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 09:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:COMMON if anything. From what you are saying our notability criteria are thoroughly screwed up. She is recognized as a leading expert. Her awards are not a joke. In any case, contrary to the nom, significant coverage in independent sources does exist, even in books. Loew Galitz ( talk) 16:40, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    • P.S. WP:ANYBIO: The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field. Loew Galitz ( talk) 17:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Academic work cited in this book. Covered in this book. Work cited again in this book. Significant coverage in the Philadelphia Inquirer here, in the Times Leader here, quoted in the Philadelphia Tribune here, quoted in the Washington Times here, in Bloomberg here. There is more coverage in the Florida Times here. The subject has been established as notable through significant coverage in independent and reliable sources. She hence meets WP:GNG. She also meets WP:NACADEMIC, not because of her job as a lawyer or adjunct professorship, but because her research has had a significant impact in her scholarly discipline. This is demonstrated by the first page of Google Scholar here - which shows dozens and dozens of peer-reviewed studies, many co-authored, published in reputable law journals in many prestigious universities. Her work has also been cited in several books and dozens of papers, a perusal of Scholar is also needed, but I get a substantial number of hits in the Australian Lexis Nexis also. Lastly, she received a highly prestigious academic award or honour at a national or international level. These are listed in the article. MaxnaCarta ( talk) 10:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per MaxnaCarta. Significant sources are available. ~ EDDY ( talk/ contribs)~ 13:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Jacky Liew

AfDs for this article:
Jacky Liew (  | talk | history | 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 AfD over at Chinese Wikipedia was closed as delete. From what I can see from the last AfD here at enwiki, the debate was mostly around the sources. People suggest that he meets GNG but all of those sources are not reliable at all. Because press releases on Chinese media don’t usually indicate that it is a press release, I will go over each source here:

  • The founder of Malaysian foodie Shi Gongzi who laid the foundation for the “Five Origins of Malaysian Cuisine”
    • This is a dead link. archive is here suggesting a repost from Economic Information Daily
    • Economic Information Daily is a repost from an article by eastday.com (archive link).
    • In a section that explains his supposed awards and accolades, the rewards cannot be found or attributed on the internet.
      • “他亦是第一个由皇宫授勋“卓越服务徽章”” (He was also the first to be awarded the “Outstanding Service Badge” by the Royal Palace.) A Google Search brings up nothing of the exact wording, except for advertising articles about Jacky Liew, and some as names for rewards from companies to their workers. NOTE: The badge actually exists, but has no media coverage for Jacky Liew actually recieving them beside being in advertising articles. See below for more analysis
      • “此论说，2011年，获得中国国际研讨会优秀论文奖” (This theory, in 2011, won the China International Symposium Outstanding Paper Award) See Google. There is no international symposium outstanding paper award.
    • The article mentions “且还是马来西亚制造许多“第一”的鼻祖” in its lede. (And also the originator of many “firsts” made in Malaysia) but none of the “firsts” were actually claimed. If this was real, they should at least give one example.
  • The Rise of Malaysian Foodie “Shi Gongzi” - archive link
    • “有人说,在大马不认识食公子,定是没有社交或出来用餐的人” (Some people say that if you don’t know this foodie in Malaysia, you must be someone who doesn’t socialize or go out to eat.) - Sure, where are all the reliable sources from malaysian media? This is just blatant advertising.
    • “就连大学论文都指出,他是马来西亚第一个以美食家称誉的作家” (Even university essays point out that he is the first author in Malaysia to be known as a foodie) - Sure, where are the essays at?
  • The first author in Malaysia known as a gourmet, “Sik Son”
    • No page author or editor. “来源：网络” (Source: Internet)
    • Also notice this sentence “如今虽已脱离平面媒体的他，仍专心研究起大数据与智能科研的学说理论” (Although he has left the print media now, he still concentrates on the theory of big data and intelligent scientific research) - no mention of the specific type of scientific research or big data carried out by Jacky Liew. Seems to be just using a common buzzword used for advertising in China.
    • All of these article cover some part of his early life, or before he became a foodie, but none of the articles show the name(s) of the author. If these were not written by Jacky Liew himself or someone with a conflict of interest, the articles should at least have an interviewer. This specific source does not have any author at all.
  • The scientific research of the God of Cookery-Foodboy re-defines the new food industry with artificial intelligence - archive link
    • Note that this article does not have a page author or editor. “中关村在线 转载” (ZOL repost) suggest a repost but this cannot be found anywhere else on the Internet.
    • “与孔子、曹操、杜甫、苏轼、张岱、李渔、金圣叹、袁枚等八位古代美食家并称” (Together with eight ancient gourmets including Confucius, Cao Cao, Du Fu, Su Shi, Zhang Dai, Li Yu, Jin Shengtan and Yuan Mei) - All of this is nonsense. These are poets, warlords, writers, and politicians that are respected in history. What qualifications does he have to make him comparable to the ancient Chinese scolars?
    • Nothing in this article is specific. There was no actual research topic or research findings but just buzzwords being tossed around. Except for one, “就以他在2000年,阅读过这么一篇由中国生产力中心出版《能力杂志》刊载类似大数据资讯统计文章” (In 2000, he read such an article published by the China Productivity Center, “Capability Magazine”, which published a similar big data information statistics article.) Translation is probably inaccurate, but the only specific thing I can find from this article is about how he read a thing.
  • The originator of Malaysian gourmets, “Shi Gongzi”
    • Revisiting this service medal thing, I think it is at here - “Medal for Outstanding Public Service”, and you cannot find any media coverage in Malaysia about this medal being given to him. See Google. I’ve tried using Chinese and English, no results are reliable media sources.
    • The author information in the page suggest a repost from http://www.rongmeiwang.cn/, except Google fails to find the supposedly original article.
    • Disclaimer on the bottom reads “The content above (including the videos, pictures and audios if any) is uploaded and posted by the user of Dafeng Hao, which is a social media platform and merely provides information storage space services.”
  • Truly Nyonya Malacca, a work handed down by the world’s gourmet master Shi Gongzi
    • Repost from sdnews - these two articles even have the same editor!
    • “各国为他创建的维基,便有十数个,中国百度、快懂、搜狗百科选入他与古代美食家，孔子、曹操、杜甫、苏轼、张岱、李渔、金圣叹、袁枚并峙的现代美食家” (There are more than a dozen wikis created for him by various countries. China’s Baidu, KuaDao, and Sogou Encyclopedia have selected him and he is comparable to ancient gourmets, Confucius, Cao Cao, Du Fu, Su Shi, Zhang Dai, Li Yu, Jin Shengtan, and Yuan Mei.) - This is so obvious I am not going to say anything.
    • Same “中国国际研讨会优秀论文奖” (China International Symposium Outstanding Paper Award) bullshit.
  • A Biography Review of the Gourmet “Malaysian God of Cookery, the Originator of Shi Gongzi” - achive link
    • “后被各国“维基”收录，译成15种语言及中国百度、快懂、搜狗各百科选入和古代美食家，至圣先师孔子、军事家曹操、诗圣杜甫、北宋大文豪苏轼、史学家张岱、戏曲家李渔、文学家金圣叹、散文家袁枚并称的近代华人美食家” (He was later included in “Wikis” of various countries, translated into 15 languages, and selected in China’s Baidu, Kuaidi, and Sogou encyclopedias. He is a modern Chinese gourmet together with the ancient gourmets, the most holy teacher Confucius, the military strategist Cao Cao, the poet Du Fu, the great writer Su Shi of the Northern Song Dynasty, the historian Zhang Dai, the dramatist Li Yu, the writer Jin Shengtan, and the essayist Yuan Mei.) - Look, surely foodies usually get praised, but none of them get praised like this. All these articles using the same “creative” praise by listing notable historical people really makes me wonder who wrote all of this, since none of them have a page author.
    • “世界美食家里，论名气，资历及才华，他是半点也不逊” (To the international foodies, in terms of fame, qualifications and talents, he is not inferior at all.) - If he has got that much fame, where can we find the coverage by non-Chinese media? Does anyone seriously believe that having articles about him in several languages of Wikipedia count?
  • Big data of the God of Cookery, Gourmet, and World Food Master
    • “当然,能同时被各国维基的标准收录,通过中国审核的百度、快懂、搜狗等百科选进,与中国古代美食家初祖伊尹、孔子、曹操、苏东坡并称的近代美食家,史记也不过是十数人” (Of course, being included in the standards of wikis of various countries at the same time, selected by Baidu, Kuaidi, Sogou and other encyclopedias reviewed by China, and a modern gourmet who is comparable first ancestor of ancient Chinese gourmets, Yi Yin, Confucius, Cao Cao, and Su Dongpo, makes him one of the few people in history) Same bullcrap.
    • No coverage of the supposed “Big Data”
  • Jacky Liew: This “foodie” is not ordinary, the first anniversary of the launch of the biography of “Shi Gongzi Classic”
    • “2008年，因其在马来西亚美食文化领域的卓越服务贡献，获得第十任国家元首颁发“社会卓越服务勋章”、“最高统治者贡献奖章”，更是第一个被召见进皇宫记述统治者生活的作家、美食家。其后，在第十一届最高统治者御前，荣膺“世界美食大师”殊荣。同时，他也是被世界数十国语言维基、中国各百科，作为马来西亚第一人，入选与古代八大美食家，孔子、曹操、杜甫、苏轼、张岱、李渔、金圣叹、袁枚并峙的近代华人美食家。” -> if you run this through Google translate, you will find the same service medal bullcrap, the Confucious crap, and the “listed on several Wikipedias” crap.
    • Still no page author.
  • The first author “Shi Gongzi” in Malaysia to be known as a foodie
    • “因其贡献优异被第十届最高元首授予社会卓越服务勋衔” - Service badge crap
    • “如今虽已脱离平面媒体的他，仍专心研究起大数据与智能科研的学说理论，这正是他一大转变” - word for word copy from another source with a different title.
    • No page author.
  • A food god ancestor who loves his wife
    • “并授予“社会卓越服务”勋衔” - same service badge thing
    • “然而，在一个雨夜，当他开启房门，见门柄挂着一个饭盒，第一次以为不知是谁送错。到第二天，门把手一样有个饭盒，便留意起这是怎一回事，直到发觉这是位女大学生的房客” (However, on a rainy night, when he opened the door and saw a lunch box hanging on the door handle, he thought for the first time that he didn’t know who sent it wrong. The next day, there was a lunch box on the doorknob, and he paid attention to it until he realized that it was the tenant of a female college student.) - please note that the sentence was not grammatically correct and the google translate output had to be tweaked to make the output conprehensible. But it is more important to note that such an anecdote occurs on a page with no author. Is there an interviewer who wrote this story? No. It was Jacky Liew himself. Some of these articles even publish original photos that cannot be found anywhere.
  • Today’s Agriculture College
    • Just a database entry equivalent. Nothing significant here.
    • I also love how Jacky Liew is conveniently highlighted for us, and that is the only page, as if the uploader had any intentions other than to preserve a magazine.

There were also linguistic elements that I picked up suggesting one person wrote all of the articles, including but not limited to, missing subjects in a sentence, run-on sentences, and similiar uses of certain transitions. But I think the linguistic argument would be pretty weak (especially on enwiki), so I will not go into details here.

Overall, the article fails GNG because all of the sources are not reliable and the websites were likely paid to publish these kinds of articles missing factual details and full of unreasonable praise. 0x Deadbeef 09:29, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Likely COI creation. Only claim to notability is what looks like a minor award which doesn't have its own article but is simply included in a very long lists of such medals. It's hard for me to search this subject, AGFing that 0xDeadbeef did a thorough BEFORE. valereee ( talk) 12:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    On COI concerns, if one visits his official website at [8], links to the various wikipedia articles about him feature prominently above the fold, and also what appears to be his version of the enwiki article if the subject (and/or connected accounts) have their way. – robertsky ( talk) 04:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete That has to win an award for being the most thought-through, thorough and analytical nomination for deletion of all time. An absolute delight to be able to cry, joyously, 'Per Nom!'. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 13:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete same as last time, trying hard but not there. Source analysis is helpful. Oaktree b ( talk) 13:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: and would not be opposed to a WP:SNOW close. –– FormalDude talk 15:06, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: the discussion is repeated as the 2nd time AFD before, the repetition is meaningless, the deletion in chinese wiki does not mean english wiki need to be delete, furthermore, in Wikipedia:Repeated AfD nomination limitation (failed proposal). the previous discussion is NON CONSENSUS, it shall not be notimated again since the last date to pass the page is 12 JUNE 2022. The rush to deletion can be the Wikipedia talk:Overzealous deletion.
KINDLY ATTENTION TO THAT. Arrisontan ( talk) 15:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
You appear to be referring to a failed proposal from over fifteen years ago? Valereee ( talk) 17:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
Then why the page still exist? It exist as a guidelines, if the proposal for deletion can be appear the next day after the previous Afd is passed, then it will open for precedent for anyone to do it so. It will cause a lot of workload and unneccessary discussion. As a result, an overzealous deletion appeared. Arrisontan ( talk) 01:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: Sock confirmed on meta. meta:Special:Permalink/23568716#Arrisontan@zh.wikipedia 0x Deadbeef 03:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
It existed as an archive for a failed proposal aka historical record, also since it is a failed proposal, it is not policy or guideline that we need to adhere to. Also, Wikipedia:Overzealous deletion is an essay, aka opinions by some editors and again not policy or guideline. Justanothersgwikieditor ( talk) 04:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: I went through 0xDEADBEEF's source analysis and mostly agree with the analysis. A lot of sources which are supposedly copied from other sources with no byline. Some articles have the same author and are basically a direct copy. Most articles are also user contribution and not by the websites. The medal given to Liew is likely to be Pingat Khidmat Masyarakat Cemerlang (Medal for Outstanding Public Service) which is ranked 22th out of 26 medals at Orders, decorations, and medals of Negeri Sembilan, aka an insignificant award. While the recipients for the medal is reported as a statistics, note that the medal is at a state level and not national level. The amount of medals given each year show the insignificance, see 98 for 2022 55 for 2021 (note there is much lesser medals awarded for the year) 107 for 2020 Justanothersgwikieditor ( talk) 03:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:38, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Mazraeh-ye Moruji

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

An AFD discussion already closed with a consensus to delete due to it failing WP:GEOLAND#1 here ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mazraeh-ye Baqr Sheybani) but the closer declined to delete due to the proposer's failure to tag this article when bundling. After discussing with the closer on their talk page I am re-nominating it. I believe the !votes already cast by @ Johnpacklambert and VersaceSpace: and myself still stand in this AFD as well and need not be repeated. FOARP ( talk) 07:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. FOARP ( talk) 07:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This place does not meet even the very low notability guidelines for places. Nothing has changed since the last dicussion. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete For historical reasons I have a deep-rooted loathing of stubs based on single references to 'databases' or gazetteers. Not sure why the close couldn't have gone ahead, BTW. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 13:17, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Name contains mazraeh (مزرعه, farm) and there are no coordinates to identify this place. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 22:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete — VersaceSpace 🌃 14:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:00, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Damien Fonoti

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 03:35, 16 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep - Passes GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 12:10, 16 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:02, 16 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Per sources added to article which show he is notable in Oceania. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk) 17:58, 18 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep given that the driving force behind this purge is a change in notability policy, articles should be tagged and given reasonable time for improvement rather than simply deleted. -- IdiotSavant ( talk) 06:42, 21 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, I'm not seeing evidence of the sourcing necessary to pass WP:GNG. The OFC article, which might not be a secondary source, is the only thing I could find that provides SIGCOV, all other sources in the article or which I could find from a search were either database listings or only provided passing mentions. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 00:25, 22 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was draftify. Karl Twist, you may want to take a look at WP:BLUDGEON. Sandstein 16:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Pact of Vengeance

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

Sources fail WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. –– FormalDude talk 06:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. –– FormalDude talk 06:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note to closing admin - If by chance this film page is considered for deletion based on the consensus could we please just re-direct it to Leo Fong#Film career thus preserving the history etc. and then at another time we'll spark things up. Many thanks Karl Twist ( talk) 09:13, 18 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I think the film is notable enough. There's been a fair bit of work done on this by mainly 2 editors> even though I'm not in a agreement with how the other main editor has done things, I still note the effort!. As the film has already made some waves and been noted in the right places and was only released this month, it will go on to achieve much more cult status. I can guarantee this. Leo Fong aka Mr. Low Blow was a cult figure in B grade and guerilla filmmaking. Len Kabasinski is too. Due to the fact that this is Leo Fong's last film and he died early this year on 18th of February, I can see the attention on this film already. Thanks. Karl Twist ( talk) 09:22, 18 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Being potentially notable in the future is not sufficient. Moving to draftspace would likely be the best choice if that is the case. –– FormalDude talk 09:37, 18 July 2022 (UTC) reply
      • Reply I disagree, there's already a history with a lot of work by 2 editors. Even if the article page here is found to be not notable, 3 other editors have made edits. There's a lot of history. Many pages, much of them films are redirected to another page. There are also other articles that reference the film. Best to preserve history, put a note on the redirection page that there should be a discussion first before the page is taken off re-direct. That's the way to do it! Karl Twist ( talk) 10:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC) reply
        • A move to draftspace also preserves the history of the page, but I'm not opposed to a redirect. –– FormalDude talk 11:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify / Redirect, as was my original intent when I reviewed this at NPP, but this was refused, so now we're here. WP:TOOSOON, only one possible limited release at a film festival next month, no independent critics reviews - the only people who have seen the film so far are sponsors. Heck, my pup has had a few films show up at local film festivals. This one's 90 miles from where it was shot. AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark • sniff) 04:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Reply to the above - From what I can see, it's made a fair bit of commotion and there's an article about it in a magazine. Yes, it was only released this month and with a slot in a Fest next month and others, it will be easily be going the same way of Challenge of Five Gauntlets and with Leo Fong's death passing it. I have already said that it should stay but for what ever reason it comes to the crunch, then a redirect for the present. It's pointless putting it into draft as there are already multiple notable articles that link to it and the re-direction to Leo Fong the section can be expanded there as well.

Not sure what 90 miles have to do with this or your pup. Throw it in if you want but it doesn't lessen anything. Now, if we were talking about cats? They can play piano. Karl Twist ( talk) 06:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC) reply

I'm just trying to get the film notability above WP:MILL / WP:HOLE and the millions of videos. When it reaches multiple film festivals and not just the nearest one. This is similar to voice actor convention appearances where the person just travels to the one within driving distance for the day, or when a garage band gets a gig at a county/state music festival a few hours away. AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark • sniff) 15:55, 20 July 2022 (UTC) reply
Reply to the above - Oh I think it's above WP:MILL / WP:HOLE . It's been mentioned in this early time on the necessary sites. Well more than a great deal of other films here on Wikipedia. A film fest of lack of one doesn't lessen the value. Karl Twist ( talk) 11:25, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - So below is what the page looked like when I had edited before the other editor came in. Here and below

And this is what it looks like now, here and below

With both of them, they have much more refs than a great amount of movies here. I believe it scrapes in. Karl Twist ( talk) 06:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC) reply

I'm the "other editor" in question. AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark • sniff) 15:49, 20 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

As discussed on the draft talk page, AV Club, Action Elite, Radio Times are just supplying IMDb database information about the film. Radio Times even says it's pulling its info from IMDb. Action Elite is just reprinting the trailer summary and the posters. So at this point they are contributing nothing towards notability. When AV Club or Radio Times puts out a real review from a critic, then you can revisit. AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark • sniff) 15:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC) reply
I don't know - I think WP:TOOSOON and the lack of independent reviews are logical reasons for draftification. XtraJovial ( talk • contribs) 20:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify The film will most likely pass notability guidelines upon release, but as of now it does not. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:42, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    Well if the consensus leans away from a keep, why not just have it on re-direct? It is pointless having it on draft. It should be a working link. There's no sensible reason given to have it on draftify as opposed to a re-direct. Karl Twist ( talk) 05:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    The reason would be that the draft can continue to be improved upon with these newer sources, ideally, more post-release critics reviews and reception / future screenings and video release. Ozone Nightmare is a critics review from a Patreon sponsor. Horror News article was just a preview based on the trailer, and PW Mania spotlighted the one wrestler who had a bit role in the film. Louder than Sound focused on a single band that contributed a track to the film. These aren't really significant coverage from independent reliable sources. AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark • sniff) 15:24, 30 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    Reply to AngusWOOF, well there's more to the film than just the Ozone Nightmare review or the Horror News review and PW Mania mentioning " one wrestler who had a bit role in the film" or "Louder than Sound focused on a single band that contributed a track to the film". You appear to be a bit selective on how you are trying to make a case. There's much more to this film as I have stated. And there's also the Cinecutre review on December 8, 2022 - ¡LO NUEVO DE LEN KABASINSKI!: Trailer de “Pact of Vengeance” con Leo Fong y Jon Mikl Thor. por Xabier Esquíroz. Tailer reviews or film reviews or whatever, the anticipation has been noted. If the closing admin's decision leans away from a Keep then the sensible thing to do is have it on re-direct to Leo Fong#Work with Len Kabasinski. There is a Work with Len Kabasinski subsection there. At present and in addition to Leo Fong's page there are the Jon Mikl Thor, Diamante, PB Smooth and Matt Hannon pages that link to it so far. So we have working links to that page! Better to redirect if the consensus is not keep. This is what happens with many films etc. Karl Twist ( talk) 09:19, 31 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Chiranjeevi Jetty

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

This article was re-created 3 days after its 2017 deletion following AFD, by the same article creator (blocked a few months later for ( WP:NOTHERE). The original article isn't in the Wayback Machine, so unclear how close it is to the original. As before, he's a minor functionary in a political party, lacks WP:SIGCOV, and fails WP:POLITICIAN. Storchy ( talk) 07:29, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. Storchy ( talk) 07:29, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Still non-notable. Agree with above. Oaktree b ( talk) 13:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete As per the above - no notability, more text in the references section than the article. Fails WP:NPOL; WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 14:35, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. As an administrator, I can view the old deleted version — and while it was structurally somewhat different than this, there isn't any particularly meaningful difference in content, so it would be a tossup whether it was speediable or not. (I would have speedied, but some other administrators might not have.) This does not make any claim that he would pass any of Wikipedia's subject-specific inclusion tests at all, and is not referenced even remotely close to well enough to claim that he would pass WP:GNG instead of having to pass any SNGs. Bearcat ( talk) 12:24, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per nom, totally agree with him. He is far from passing WP:GNG MickeyMouse143 ( talk) 09:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:16, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Dil Haari

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

Tagged for notability since March, this Pakistani TV drama fails WP:GNG with no clear presentation of notability and none on search. Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 05:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete  – Only this source can be argued upto mark. Other significant source is categorized by publisher as Latest Happenings making it unreliable. Apart from these sources, there's nothing significant, independent and reliable available on the internet. Thanks AHatd ( talk) 12:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 07:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Glory of Heroes

Glory of Heroes (  | talk | history | 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 GNG Zafir94 ( talk) 05:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. "《勇士的荣耀》刘响明中式泰拳激情对战传统泰拳" (in Chinese). Sina Corporation. 2016-04-17. Archived from the original on 2022-07-25. Retrieved 2022-07-25.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "The Glory of Heroes, of the WLF's hall-level fighting event warrior, the first of the six games of the year, ended on April 2 in Pengcheng Shenzhen. Qiu Jianliang, Tie Yinghua, Deng Zeqi, Yilong and other top domestic players appeared one by one against foreign teams including Alex Pereira, Enrique Kerr and Jiang Tongchai. The Tang Dynasty band added to the fun, the atmosphere was hot, and it was unsatisfactory. The second leg of the Glory of Heroes will also start again on May 7. Not only will the above-mentioned boxers return, but also the comeback of the WLF world kung fu king Yang Zhuo, which makes boxing fans look forward to it."

    2. Chen, Yanni 陈艳妮, ed. (2018-01-12). "峨眉传奇战略布局首次曝光！或将超越昆仑决武林风" (in Chinese). Xinhua News Agency. Archived from the original on 2022-07-25. Retrieved 2022-07-25.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "The Glory of Warriors, with Guo Chendong and Dadongxiang Glory Alliance as the core, has a market valuation of nearly 300 million yuan at the beginning of its founding, but after all, the new GOH is still too young, and is out of the martial arts style. After the embrace of the system, the new GOH wants to become a hall-level event, obviously there is still a way to go, but its future is undoubtedly full of hope. At present, Kunlun Jue, which has completed the B+ round of financing through the method of "burning money", has successfully operated at the world's top level for four years. elder brother."

    3. Zhou, Chao 周超 (2016-05-01). "《勇士的荣耀》邱建良显档次 杨茁战K1世界挑战者" (in Chinese). Sina Corporation. Archived from the original on 2022-07-25. Retrieved 2022-07-25.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "After "Glory of the Warrior" emerged from the old "Wulin Style", it is ready to create a brand new high-end brand. Because it is a tower built on the original "Wulin Style" platform, "The Glory of the Warrior" has both the original The excellent side of the "Wulin Style" competition also inherited some of the original "Wulin Style" problems that need to be resolved. For example, the referee's laxity in penalty decisions was undoubtedly exposed in Yilong's game."

    4. "《勇士的荣耀》后生可畏 邱建良都不想跟他打" (in Chinese). Sina Corporation. 2017-02-26. Archived from the original on 2022-07-25. Retrieved 2022-07-25.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "Xing Tianwu Qi Han Wenbao, who has emerged after the two battles in "The Glory of the Warriors VI" and "The Glory of the Warriors-Rise" in New Zealand, is fierce and skilled, but he is also a 1997-born teenager under the age of 20."

    5. Zhao, Zhenlu 赵振鲁 (2018). "勇士之战 荣耀廣州". 拳击与格斗 (in Chinese). Jilin Publishing Group [ zh. Archived from the original on 2022-07-25. Retrieved 2022-07-25 – via CNKI.

      The abstract notes: "On January 13, 2018, Beijing time, the four-month "Glory of the Warriors" festival season finally ushered in the final battle in Guangzhou after the fierce battles in Luoyang, Jinan and Wudang Mountains. . That night, 6 world-class kickboxers who stood out from the qualifiers and semi-finals fought each other in the arena of Guangzhou University Town Sports Center, in order to symbolize the highest honor of the warriors in the GOH welterweight, bantamweight, and second light Fight for 3 gold belts."

    6. Han, Congcong 韩聪聪; Wu, Lingyu 万凌宇; Wu, Hejian 吴核坚 (2019). "中国传统武术在现代兵击运动中的应用". 体育风尚 (in Chinese). ISSN  1674-1552. Archived from the original on 2022-07-25. Retrieved 2022-07-25 – via CNKI.

      The abstract notes: "In the "Glory of the Warriors" Shanghai Station at the end of July 2018, not only a bloody fighting competition, but also a traditional weapon full-armor fighting competition was held. The duel between the two players on the field of electric, light and flint is eye-catching, reappearing the master style of the ancient warrior Fenglin Huan, and also pulling the audience back to the ancient battlefield of golden horses and iron horses. The video of the match spread like wildfire on the Internet, and this new form of fighting has attracted much attention among many martial arts enthusiasts."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Glory of Heroes ( simplified Chinese: 勇士的荣耀; traditional Chinese: 勇士的榮耀) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 06:49, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per Cunard who has actually done the research. Thanks! ~ Kvng ( talk) 14:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep due to the as always outstanding work by Cunard in proving notability. Great work MaxnaCarta ( talk) 13:10, 30 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Alessia Patregnani

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

Alessia Patregnani

Actress who does not meet general notability or acting notability. Created in draft space by a single-purpose account, then moved to article space when autoconfirmed, then moved back to draft space by User:Praxidicae as not ready for article space. Then moved back to article space by originator. The article makes no mention of significant coverage. A check of the references shows that they are not significant coverage, but verify that she exists and is an actress.

Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 cines.com A movie database, lists Blood on Melies Moon Yes No Yes No
2 voice123.com Lists her availability as a voice actress No No Yes No
3 tcm.com States that she was music coordinator in Capturing the Friedmans No No Yes No
4 ilsussidiario.net About her ex-husband, mentions their marriage and divorce Yes No, passing mention Yes No
No No Yes No

Verifiability is an important policy, but so is notability, and she does not meet general notability. A review of the filmography includes only one work that is the subject of a Wikipedia article, in which she was the music director, and one in which a movie database verifies that she acted.

Work Comments Wikipedia Article Remarks Major Role
Petali di Rosa No No
Capturing the Friedmans Music director Yes Not listed as actress No
Blood on Méliès' Moon No Role is verified No
I piccoli maghi di Oz, No No
Brute No No
Fredericka No short film by this title No No
Danny & the Deep Blue Sea No No
Aurora: All is Well No No
Don Matteo Television series Yes Not in list of recurring cast No
Fratelli detective No No

She does not have multiple major roles. The article and the references do not establish notability. She may be notable now or in the future, but this article should not be in article space. It should be in draft space, where it was. I am not moving it unilaterally back to draft space because that would be move-warring. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I'm marking this as CSD G7 since the article creator is asking for deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Gebauer 1934.M GKM

Gebauer 1934.M GKM (  | talk | history | 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 fails WP:GNG. A BEFORE search revealed no SIGCOV in RS. The cited sources fail WP:SPS so there's no claim of notability. Chris Troutman ( talk) 04:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC) reply

contribs) 20:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC) reply

I object to the proposal for deletion due to no significant coverage. This firearm was used by several notable aircraft, and was the basis for tank-mounted designs that saw use before and during WWII. It saw service from 1934 to 1942 in the Hungarian Air Force and is mentioned in the book "Biplane to Monoplane Aircraft Development 1919-39"
A Google search for Gebauer 1934.M GKM nets 70,300 results. Admittedly, not all will be relevant (junk pages and bots), but that's no small number.
Here are a few that are relevant for coverage:
http://www.hungariae.com/Gebauer.htm
http://metdetails.com/catalog/dnepromodel/guns/135/3588-gebauer-tank-machine-gun-193437m
https://hungarianweaponryww2.wixsite.com/hungarianmilitaryww2/single-post/2018/08/07/aviation
http://www.airwar.ru/weapon/guns/gebauer1934.html
https://guns.fandom.com/wiki/Gebauer_machine_cannon
Those are all from the first page, and even include a resin kit for the weapon.
From the second page:
https://alternathistory.com/pulemet-gebauer-1934-m-gkm/
https://heroesandgenerals.com/forums/topic/49247-hungarian-faction-complete-tech-tree/
https://www.google.com/search?q=Gebauer+1934.M+GKM&client=firefox-b-1-d&ei=XuTMYsb6GP-hqtsP7dSGyAo&start=10&sa=N&ved=2ahUKEwjGoYa9rvL4AhX_kGoFHW2qAakQ8NMDegQIKhA-&biw=1600&bih=756
So obviously there is coverage. Hungariae is a well-known site for Hungarian weaponry that has been around for 13 years, if not more. Airwar.ru has a decently long article with several images of the weapon installed on aircraft. Whether the fandom page is reliable or not is up for debate, but it's a decently long article about all of the Gebauer MGs. Perhaps, like fandom, Wikiwand ( https://www.wikiwand.com/it/Gebauer_(mitragliatrice)), and El Gran Capitan ( https://www.elgrancapitan.org/foro/viewtopic.php?p=497986), the Gebauer MGs need to go in one article rather than in separate ones. I can see an argument for that and would be glad to start work on it if that's the general consensus.
As far as SPS being an issue: That's a large chunk of the web, especially about topics such as this. Wikipedia itself is filled to the brim with references to personal sites. Any journal articles are likely behind paywalls and in Hungarian or German. It's not like a medical topic where you'd expect to see weigh-in from the AAMA or NHS Tengu99 ( talk) 00:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The more that I think about it, maybe there really isn't enough to justify an article by itself, but what if all of the Gebauer MGs were listed under the Ferenc Gebauer article? Would that be better? Tengu99 ( talk) 00:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete None of the websites identified above appear to meet our requirements for reliable sources. For example Hungariae appears to be an anonymously authored WP:SPS, others are links to forums and wikis, etc. I can't find any better sources via quick Google and Google Books searches. There might be better sourcing available offline, but we can't keep an article based on hypothetical sourcing: offline sources need to be actually identified for them to be considered. As for merging to Ferenc Gebauer, a few concerns: 1) That article, too, is in such a bad shape in terms of referencing that I wouldn't be surprised if it was AfD'd very soon 2) given that there's really nothing reliable sourced in this article, I'm not sure what would be merged. Adding a sentence with {{ citation needed}} tags doesn't really accomplish much of anything. - Ljleppan ( talk) 10:04, 16 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:32, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply

So, I may well be out of place adding this section to this discussion, as it's more of an argument to head off an AfD for the Ferenc Gebauer page before that happens rather than for this particular article, but I feel that the remarks about the growth of Wikipedia articles are valid for both.
There are potentially good sources for Ferenc Gebauer, at least in regards to his involvement with Danubia and weapons development, here:
http://real-j.mtak.hu/11405/4/Haditechnika%20%202012_4_teljes_red.pdf
http://real-j.mtak.hu/11405/5/Haditechnika%202012_5_teljes_red.pdf
Those weren't the easiest to find, but not the most terrible. There may well be more in other Hungarian and German sources, but it will take some work digging through records and the sources listed in those articles, hopefully by an expert. Someone with quality access to the Bundesarchiv in Germany or the Hungarian Military History Archive could probably find a decent amount of information on Ferenc.
Maybe information for a patent by Ferenc and Pal ( https://patents.google.com/patent/US1985493A/en) will be useful, but I'd have to do a bit more research on that as someone would have to positively identify the link between it and the 1934.M GKM, though it might make for a short line in the Gebauer article.
I argue that this is how Wikipedia articles grow. They may start small with few and easy to find sources that may not be the most reliable, but as more people take interest better sources are found and more information added.
I do get that a lot of web sites aren't a traditionally scholarly source of information. Hungarie, though respected in some communities, doesn't list his sources. Fandom is...iffy? If I were writing a paper then I wouldn't cite it, so I get that. However, I don't think that an article should necessarily be deleted until a more exhaustive search of sources can be conducted. Tengu99 ( talk) 02:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC) reply
Fandom is not iffy, there's a well-established consensus that it is unreliable as self-published user generated content; see WP:FANDOM. Again may well be and could probably find is not sufficient to establish notability; the sources need to be actually identified.
It's great that that you found better sourcing for Ferenc Gebauer, but that doesn't really solve the problem where there's nothing in this article that could be merged to Gebauer with a reliable citation. If you do find something in a reliable source, I'm not opposed to merging that. But as it's right now, I don't see what the potential merged content would be. Ljleppan ( talk) 08:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC) reply
Currently adding better sources for both articles. Please have a look. I know it's not much so far, but even an expert author is having to go through a lot of archives to find info about him. Tengu99 ( talk) 03:57, 21 July 2022 (UTC) reply
Added more sources from Hungarian documents. Tengu99 ( talk) 23:34, 21 July 2022 (UTC) reply
I don't read Hungarian, so it would be great if you could give a brief description along the lines of WP:THREE of what the top-3 sources you found are, why they are reliable and in how much detail they discuss the article subject. Ljleppan ( talk) 13:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Database for the Range of Weapons Designer Ferenc Gebauer and Categorization of Firearms Designed By It
- Covers this firearm and others designed by Gebauer. Military Historical Notices Number Volume 125, Issue 3, p.677-715. From the Electronic Periodical Database Archive, Budapest. https://epa.oszk.hu/00000/00018/00289/pdf/EPA00018_hadtortenelmi_2012_03_677-716.pdf
  • At the Danube: Hungarians in the 20TH Century (1918-2000).
-Use of the 34/37 on sentry boats (gunboats). Encyclopaedia Humana Hungarica Volume 09. https://mek.oszk.hu/01900/01906/html/index7.html
  • Military Technology, year XLVIII, number 4
-Focused on a further development, but has information on the 1934.M. Article title: "Faster than Lightning: The 1939M 8mm High Rate of Fire Machine Gun". Hungarian military technology journal. ISSN 0230-6891. http://real-j.mtak.hu/11407/4/HT_2014-4_teljes_red.pdf
  • From the Military Technical Institute of the Royal Hungarian Army to the HM Technology Office 1920 – 2005
-Book on Hungarian arms technology, with a section on the Gebauer-féle motorhajtású géppuskák, which includes the 34.M. Hosted by The Digital Content Development and Services Department and the staff of the Web Archiving Department of the Hungarian Electronic Library. ISBN 9789632196664. https://mek.oszk.hu/12900/12993/pdf/12993_1.pdf Tengu99 ( talk) 16:26, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply
What do covers, has information on and includes mean in practical terms of depth of coverage? A few sentences? Multiple pages? Looking at the last source, for example, I believe the section you are referring to has a single page of prose (followed by two pages of images), of which less than a single sentence appears to be about the article's topic specifically. Ljleppan ( talk) 18:15, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply
There's just going to be snippets of info here and there about this weapon, so it probably can't stand on it's own. Go ahead and delete it, I'll add the info to the other article. Tengu99 ( talk) 18:25, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: User:Tengu99 after creating this article and working on improving it during this discussion, are you now supporting its deletion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Hello. Yes, as the research I did actually backs up Chris Troutman and Ljleppan's points about coverage and sources. There's some coverage, but it's a line here, a few lines there, and so on. Thus it works out better to just move that info into the article about the inventor rather than try to make individual articles about the individual firearms themselves. Thank you, Liz.
I do wish to thank Chris Troutman and Ljleppan. This has been a learning experience. Tengu99 ( talk) 12:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 04:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Eddie Alderson

Eddie Alderson (  | talk | history | 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:NACTOR… one notable role on One Life to Live, and that was it. Bgsu98 ( talk) 04:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep WP:N doesn't expire just because the subject decided to depart acting when they became of age. Several award nominations and two roles in major mainstream films clinch it. Nate • ( chatter) 22:28, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Opinion is divided between redirect and keep, and I can't assign either side's arguments more weight. Sandstein 12:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Akash Ambani

AfDs for this article:
Akash Ambani (  | talk | history | 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 WP:GNG because there is a clear lack of coverage about this subject that would be rid of his father or family per WP:NOTINHERITED.

The subject still fails WP:BUSINESSPERSONOUTCOME because he is a chairman of Reliance JIO now but it is not in Fortune 500 companies. Srijanx22 ( talk) 03:27, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. Shellwood ( talk) 08:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep passes WP:GNG the subject has received coverage particularly after he became the chairman of Reliance JIO India's largest telecom company and one of the most important corporate positions in India.It is the third largest mobile network operator in the world.Note the coverage listed below about the subject is due to the fact he is the Chairman of Reliance JIO not because of his being Mukesh Ambani's son and hence WP:NOTINHERITED does not apply here.Further How one becomes Chairman or President or director is not a concern as far notability is concerned Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 12:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. reply

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]

References

  1. ^ "Akash Ambani: Here's all you need to know about Reliance Jio's new chairman". The Economic Times. 30 June 2022. Retrieved 3 July 2022.
  2. ^ "Who is Akash Ambani? Know all about the new chairman of Reliance Jio and son of billionaire Mukesh Ambani". Free Press Journal. 28 July 2022. Retrieved 13 July 2022.
  3. ^ "Who Is Akash Ambani? 5 Facts About Reliance Jio's New Chairman". NDTV. 28 June 2022. Retrieved 15 July 2022.
  4. ^ "Position of power: Akash Ambani moves from open office to Jio corner room". Business Standard. Retrieved 19 July 2022.
  5. ^ "Everything you want to know about Akash Ambani, the new chairman of Reliance Jio Infocomm". GQ. Retrieved 19 July 2022.
  6. ^ "Akash Ambani, chairman, Reliance Jio: Learning the ropes from the best teacher in town". Financial Times. Retrieved 19 July 2022.
  7. ^ "Reliance empire succession: what to know about Akash Ambani, from his support of Mumbai Indians, Ivy League education to love of luxury cars". South China Morning Post. Retrieved 19 July 2022.
  8. ^ "Inheritors of Reliance Empire:Know Everything about Akash and Isha Ambani". Outlook. Retrieved 19 July 2022.
  9. ^ "Akash Ambani: Meet the new Chairman of Reliance Jio". Hindu Businessline. Retrieved 19 July 2022.
  10. ^ "Akash Ambani Appointed as Reliance's Chairman, All you Need to Know About Him". India Today. Retrieved 19 July 2022.
It could pass GNG only if the subject received coverage other than being the son of a rich person or serving in his company because with these aspects, the subject is directly inheriting notability from the actual notable subject. Your sources, mainly read like paid news showing poor re-writing skills and with similar headlines like "Know About Akash Ambani". Rest of your argument is also meaningless and does not serve as a rebuttal to nomination. What do you even meant from "largest telecom company"? Do you mean we should be also having article on chairman of the "largest mango seller" even if the subject lacks coverage outside as the son of a rich person? Why you are ignoring the requirement of WP:BUSINESSPERSONOUTCOME? >>>  Extorc. talk 11:28, 24 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Mukesh Ambani: Agree with the nominator, all the coverage is due to his father's business. Lack of individual achievement or major work. Whatever little info is there about him can be covered in Mukesh Ambani#Family. Venkat TL ( talk) 15:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Coverage is because he is the chairman of Reliance JIO India's largest telecom company which is a notable achievement .I have listed 10 articles and do more about the subject which clearly makes him pass WP:GNG.Note coverage is above due to the fact he is the Chairman of JIO not because he is Mukesh Ambani's son Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 16:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    Clearly we disagree but in my opinion, being appointed the head of a company by father who owns the group of companies is not an achievement. Articles above are tabloid type and covered because he is the son of Ambani. Please wait until some individual achievement. Can be recreated later. Venkat TL ( talk) 16:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and redirect - From the sources mentioned above I only see that there is a richest person ( Mukesh Ambani) of India (1.3 billion population) who is building up a career for his son (the subject of AfD) by appointing him as chairman of a company ( Jio) he had founded. This violates WP:INHERITED and the subject is not meeting GNG. Orientls ( talk) 17:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    WP:INHERITED is not about literal inheritance, such as we see here. Phil Bridger ( talk) 18:27, 21 July 2022 (UTC) reply
Read again, I specifically noted "From the sources mentioned above" that Akash Ambani has zero independent reliable sources talking about him without significantly talking about his father and father's business. Orientls ( talk) 08:17, 24 July 2022 (UTC) reply
During the previous AFD he was not Chairman of Jio with 340 million subscribers now he is. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 23:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC) reply
Still does not meet WP:BUSINESSPERSONOUTCOME, so the argument is still the same. Just moving one step ahead in life isn't enough. >>>  Extorc. talk 13:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect again. The coverage happened because of his father and there are no sources that provide him coverage for something of his own. Shashank5988 ( talk) 10:54, 21 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep He holds chairmanship of an organization with largest subscriber base in India, WP:NOTINHERITED not applicable here. Shankar2001 ( talk) 14:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply
I would like to know what made this account !vote here after inactivity of over 3 months and repeating same argument by the creator (Pharaoh of the Wizards) which already failed in the earlier AfD. >>>  Extorc. talk 11:28, 24 July 2022 (UTC) reply
If you believe something was inappropriate, this is not the forum to make the claim. Buffs ( talk) 15:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • I agree with Delete and redirecting to father's page. KSAWikipedian ( talk) 16:34, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and redirect to Mukesh Ambani. The sources have clearly provided coverage because of his father's notability and there is no coverage about him that would be rid from that of his father. desmay ( talk) 22:15, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply

*Keep Chairmanship of Reliance Jio world’s largest telecom operator makes Akash Ambani notable.Sources listed by Pharaoh shows it passes WP:GNG. WP:NOTINHERITED does not apply is not about literal inheritance . 93.189.6.34 ( talk) 00:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC) Blocked proxy IP reply

I would like to know what made this IP !vote here by throwing a strawman after inactivity of over 18 months and using not only same argument as the creator of the article (Pharaoh of the Wizards) but also using same writing skills as Pharaoh of the Wizards. >>>  Extorc. talk 11:28, 24 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The IP editor has voted in 3 unreleated AFDs 1 , 2 Not just this one they are allowed to vote. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 23:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC) reply
Now why you are throwing strawman? I never said that the IP hasn't voted in any other AfD but came back after an inactivity of over 18 months. >>>  Extorc. talk 13:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply
If you are alleging misdeeds, this is not the forum. IP addresses change all the time. Buffs ( talk) 15:33, 4 August 2022 (UTC) reply
Static web proxy. I have reported it on noticeboard. CharlesWain ( talk) 05:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is a basic disagreement here between editors who disregard all coverage as violating WP:NOTINHERITED and those who believe it is legitimate and provides coverage of this individual that passes WP:GNG. Please judge the sourcing based on its qualitiy and whether it is in-depth and not make assumptions on whether or not it paid coverage unless there is evidence of paid editing. Maybe another week will help bring this discussion to some consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - I'm a tad confused by this nomination and the arguments made for deletion. I totally get that notability is not inherited. IE: The child of a famous actor does not meet notability standards merely due to the notability of its parent. However, I do not think sources that are largely about the parent, but also have coverage of the child, contravene NOTINHERITED. Sure, BUSINESSOUTCOME is not met. That is not really relevant to this discussion as an argument for deletion. It simply notes that notability is usually found to exist when one is head of a F500 or FTSE100 company. If the subject had no coverage, then perhaps this would be relevant, but he does. There is an article in GQ. The coverage in this Forbes piece is not negated merely because the headline has Mukesh Ambani in it. There is still coverage within this article that is more than trivial of Akash. There is an article dedicated to Akash Ambani in the Economic Times of India here. There are countless other hits of significant coverage from independent, secondary, reliable sources. Hence he clearly meets WP:GNG. I'm not seeing any evidence of paid editing either. I do a lot of work in the "articles with a promotional tone" category, and puff pieces are typically a lot longer than this with buckets of fluff. The article needs expansion, and from the sources located there is enough to write at least a start class article about his early life, education, involvement with family affairs etc. Much of this coverage only came up a month ago - and so I have no doubt as he continues to manage and takeover family affairs the coverage will grow and so too will the article. MaxnaCarta ( talk) 06:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
GQ introduces the subject as "Akash Ambani is the eldest son of Mukesh and Nita Ambani".
This introduces the subject as "but Indian billionaire Mukesh Ambani has commenced the handover at age 65..... His eldest son Akash Ambani, 30, took over as chairman".
Here, the source introduces the subject as "Mukesh Ambani, announced his resignation from Reliance Jio’s Board on 28th June 2022. Following his resignation, Mukesh passed on the baton of his thriving telecom business to his son Akash Ambani."
And you wonder how WP:NOTINHERITED is violated. It is exactly violated.
Good you admit that WP:BUSINESSOUTCOME is not met, but "GNG" is being wrongly cited by you and some others. With the definition of "GNG" that has been provided here, we will need an article about Estere and Stella (kids of Madonna) who received million times more coverage than Akash Ambani. Orientls ( talk) 08:49, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
That is not the spirit of NOTINHERITED. The guideline is designed to ensure that non-notable people do not have their own article merely because they’re associated with a notable subject. A person who dates Tom Cruise is not suddenly notable merely due to their association with him. However if there is significant coverage the notability is met. I am not incorrectly citing anything. The GQ article is not invalidated as a source merely because his father is in the first paragraph. Three more go on to discuss the subject. The subject meets the general notability guideline which stipulates assumed notability where there is significant coverage in multiple appropriate sources. I’ve produced three sources above. The guideline is hence met and my submission stands. BUSINESSOUTCOME is not even a notability guideline. It’s a common AFD result. MaxnaCarta ( talk) 12:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
If it had been someone unrelated who had been referred to in those articles in the same way rather than the former chairman's son would you have invoked WP:NOTINHERITED? As far as that guideline goes "inheritance" in the Wikipedia sense would be just the same. The fact that this article is about someone's son is irrelevant. Phil Bridger ( talk) 17:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Mukesh Ambani: as many have stated, all the coverage that exists about this topic is directly because of their relation to Mukesh Ambani, and it should therefore be included at that page. –– FormalDude talk 00:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    I'm not denying that the guy is notable because of his father, and that is why the coverage is there.
    From WP:NOTINHERITED: "The fact of having a famous relative is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article. Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG". So, if the only claim to notability was that Akash worked with his famous father, but no coverage existed on Akash that could be used to write a verifiable article, then he is not notable merely because of his familial relationship to someone notable. However, policy does not, anywhere, state that merely because a subject has become notable due to a notable parent, that subject is hence unable to meet WP:GNG. If the coverage was merely trivial, a passing mention that the father had a son, I would not be arguing for keep. But there is substantial and significant coverage discussing the article subject at length. He therefore passes GNG. MaxnaCarta ( talk) 00:21, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    WP:PAGEDECIDE states that even notable topics may not be best presented in a standalone article, and I believe that is the case here, being that all the sources are in the context of his relationship to Ambani. –– FormalDude talk 01:28, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Mukesh Ambani per arguments above. Azuredivay ( talk) 12:39, 31 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep While the articles mention the fact that he is his father's son, that does not invalidate the articles. He's the CEO of a major telecom in India. How he got there is irrelevant and such an argument falls on deaf ears given the coverage and notability. Given his lineage, it's likely that every article will mention it. Buffs ( talk) 15:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • The coverage mainly relies on the fact he is son of Mukesh Ambani and that totally invalidates the subject's notability per WP:NOTINHERITED. He is not a "CEO" and there is no article on Mukesh Ambani that mentions Dhirubhai Ambani. Your argument is totally misleading. CharlesWain ( talk) 05:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    I've provided a fairly indepth explanation of why the coverage does not fall under WP:NOTINHERITED. "The guideline is designed to ensure that non-notable people do not have their own article merely because they’re associated with a notable subject. A person who dates Tom Cruise is not suddenly notable merely due to their association with him. However if there is significant coverage the notability is met. I am not incorrectly citing anything. The GQ article is not invalidated as a source merely because his father is in the first paragraph. Three more go on to discuss the subject. The subject meets the general notability guideline which stipulates assumed notability where there is significant coverage in multiple appropriate sources. I’ve produced three sources above. MaxnaCarta ( talk) 08:10, 5 August 2022 (UTC) reply
They still don't justify stand alone article. I support redirecting as it would still allow creation in future if necessary. CharlesWain ( talk) 10:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Mukesh Ambani Even if the opposing argument is accepted then still there is nothing to note about him other than him being a chairman of Reliance JIO. I agree that per WP:NOPAGE, he is still far from having his own page. ArvindPalaskar ( talk) 06:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep MaxnaCarta has the strongest arguments here by far. This subject is clearly notable based on the way he is treated by the Indian media. For example, the Economic Times covering his wedding in detail? The South China Morning Post doing an in-depth profile on him? The Times of India, India's largest circulation English language newspaper, with over 13 million readers, printing an article about how Akash was featured on Forbes' 40 under 40? This is clearly a major national celebrity, and the fact that it is probably almost exclusively due to his father's wealth does nothing to change that. Chagropango ( talk) 11:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Rocco Basile

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

promotional and non-notable Ref one is a trivial mention, The other refs refer to a trivial local promotional honor. DGG ( talk ) 00:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - notability exists. Agree, with tone being promotional which should be fixed. He is the recipient of an award-cum-resolution from the NY Senate per this. Meets WP:ANYBIO. 174.93.92.251 ( talk) 03:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and New York. Shellwood ( talk) 08:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I do not think the award from the legislature is enough to show notability, and the sourcing does not provide the coverage at a level we need to justify an article. Just because you get recognition from a legislative body does not mean you are notable. I have a great uncle who was an academic administrator, who had a school named after him, and who Nevada designated a day in his honor, but I am sure he is not notable. Government honors that are not actually highly restrictive are not enough to show notability, and I do not think the honor mentioned above is enough to show notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:04, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep meets WP:ANYBIO. His award from the NY Senate seems very selective and isn't awarded graciously as suggested above, [9]. He is also an actor which furthers his notability above the line and make him pass WP:GNG, [10]. 08:56, 19 July 2022 (UTC) 65.92.160.108 ( talk)
  • Keep per above Andrevan @ 00:29, 24 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I hate to relist a 3rd time but I'd like to see a few more thoughtful opinions on this one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete "Man of the year" isn't notable for our purposes, he gives money to charity. As do many others in his position. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. No substantial coverage in sources. The state award is not a prominent one and looks like a thing politicians do to reward campaign donors or friends. Sandstein 12:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Andrevan (seems like they are better versed with NY topics). Notable as an architect, in addition to his notability as an actor and philanthropist. Additional coverage found ( [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]). 159.196.31.83 ( talk) 13:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Lacks in-depth coverage to meet WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:49, 5 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Found a relevant case study. 199.115.163.26 ( talk) 15:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR applies. ✗ plicit 11:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Bowithick Quarry

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

Quarries are not inherently notable. Lack of in-depth coverage in independent RS to meet GNG. MB 02:47, 12 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply

NemesisAT ( talk) 10:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 03:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Hillbrush

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

Does not meet GNG/NCORP. Small private company, lack of in-depth converage in independent sources. Citations are all from the company website, press releases, or minor mentions about a few of their products. MB 02:30, 12 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. There are a couple sources, but only a couple, and I fear that there's not enough written about this company to make an article that's neither permanently a stub nor promotional of the company. If we were to write an article I think we'd be relying almost solely on the made in britain book. FalconK ( talk) 22:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Shamaira Stekkinger

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 03:29, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:36, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Pink Sweat

Pink Sweat (  | talk | history | 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 short film that does not appear to pass the WP:GNG. The only real claim to notability in the article itself is winning a non-notable award. There are no real reliable sources included in the article, and I could find no coverage at all upon searches. To be fair, most searches assume you are trying to find info on Pink Sweat$, but even trying to refine the search only brings up the briefest of mentions. Rorshacma ( talk) 03:29, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete per nomination. QuietHere ( talk) 16:31, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete - If we consider it a short film, then it doesn't meet WP:NFILM. The award does not seem major. Zeddedm ( talk) 20:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:35, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Zolique Samuel

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 03:26, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:34, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Penguin Computing

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

Seems to mostly consist of an advertisement. Urban Versis 32KB ⚡ ( talk / contribs) 03:25, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Urban Versis 32KB ⚡ ( talk / contribs) 03:25, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and California. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 22:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 22:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - The article's subject fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Of the 11 sources in the article, there are none that aren't outright press releases/wires. At first I thought maybe this PCWorld article might be a reliable source, but upon reading it, it's very clearly sourcing itself from a press release. I did check beyond the sources in the article to see if there was available sourcing elsewhere, and there are plenty of press releases/wires and wordpress blog discussions on Google search results, but nothing that would support notability. Likewise with Google Books, all that came up were lots of ads they ran in magazines like PCMagazine. There are even Google Scholar results, but those are primary/non-independent sources, again nothing that shows notability for the subject. I did find one mention in Newspapers.com that wasn't an ad, but it lacked any significant coverage and was merely an advice column from 1999 saying the following: "Another good place to turn if you're looking to buy a PC with Linux already installed in Penguin Computing. They offer a full range of systems plus lots of tech support when you need it." A trivial mention in an opinion piece in a newspaper from 1999 is the best I could find. Trivial mentions don't provide significant coverage per WP:GNG, and if that's the best I was able to find I don't think this article's subject meets any of Wikipedia's notability requirements. - Aoidh ( talk) 03:58, 29 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

2022 Langley shootings

The result was keep. WP:SNOW. ( non-admin closure) WWGB ( talk) 05:55, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply


2022 Langley shootings (  | talk | history | 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 would like it nominated on the grounds of wp:NOTNEWS. Coverage of the topic is *exclusively* from news sources covering the incident. There is no evidence that this event will be an enduringly notable event, ... considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style. I would support this article being draftified until such time as evidence emerges that this incident is enduringly notable (for instance, if it continues to recieve coverage and attention from sources months later, or is later shown to be integral to understanding some kind of legal reform, etc). 128.189.112.147 ( talk) 01:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

In particular, WP:EVENTCRIT, suggests the following guidelines:
  • An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable. - no evidence of this at this time
  • An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable. - not the case as all the sources used, along with sources found, are reformulating the same reuters/CBC piece.
  • Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle - unclear right now as it literally happened today
  • Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable. Wide-ranging reporting tends to show significance, but sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted. - this is indeed true, but again, all the sources are regurtitating the same reuters/CBC source, thus should be counted as less valuable, as sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted. CoreyToldMeToDoThis ( talk) 03:16, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Neutral Comment — WP:RAPID is at play here with the article being nominated for AfD hours after creation & at the time of nomination, still contained a {{Current event}} template. I recommend no editors make any !votes (Keep, Delete, Merge, Redirects, or Draftify) for at least 24 hours. That will ensure the article’s topic would have the time to show any potential for notability. Any editors who gave an !vote prior to this message (or within 4-5 hours after this message) will receive a ping after 24 hours for a chance to reassess the article. Prior !votes may or may not change, but that will give a current event article any chance to show potential for lasting notability. Elijahandskip ( talk) 03:24, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
As stated/promised, here are the editors who voted prior or within 4 hours of the WP:RAPID message. You may or may not change your !vote, but any confirmations/changes will ensure they were not involved with any "quick" decisions, aka, WP:RAPID. @ CoreyToldMeToDoThis: CT55555, and Silent-Rains. Elijahandskip ( talk) 04:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
WP:RAPID is about not quickly deleting an article and it therefore does not apply to my keep vote. I don't think editors should be obliged to restate their votes, but for the avoidance of doubt, I know that I may update my vote and I have chosen not to. CT55555 ( talk) 10:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Leaning keep I think this nomination is too hasty. My WP:BEFORE searches informed me that this is the currently most popular news item in the CBC. I see already it attracting international news. It seems likely to attract significant, sustained coverage, it seems likely to have lasting effect. That is somewhere between informed analysis and speculation, which is why we should wait and not make a hasty delete decision. CT55555 ( talk) 03:31, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This article does not break the wp:NOTNEWS policy in my opinion.
    • Rule one of wp:NOTNEWS is "No original reporting." this wiki page does not break that rule. All information on the wiki page is from verifiable sources.
    • Rule 2 of wp:NOTNEWS is "Don't write Wikipedia articles in the style of a newspaper [essentially]." This wikipage doesn't break that rule either.
    • The 3rd rule of wp:NOTNEWS is "Who's Who" which states, "Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event." This wiki page follows that rule. It is about the event (the shootings,) not a biography of the perp.
    • The final rule of wp:NOTNEWS is "No Celebrity gossip and diary." This wikipedia page is about a spree killing, not celebrity gossip. This wiki article does not break the wp:NOTNEWS policy in my opinion. Silent-Rains ( talk) 04:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Fairly obvious Keep A relatively rare event of this type in Canada, which will receive future coverage. We have large numbers of such articles, unfortunately, mostly relating to the US naturally. Johnbod ( talk) 13:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep These such events are pretty rare in Canada, and when they happen, it usually occurs on Ontario. The fact that the nominator is complaining only about newspapers covering the shootings is rather unusual because it's barely been a day since the attacks. Dunutubble ( talk) ( Contributions) 14:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
Strong keep MrMemer223 ( talk) 16:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
You don't have to, but it will be more persuasive to who ever closes this if you way why you !voted that way. CT55555 ( talk) 16:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat ( talk) 23:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Ryker Evans

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

Ineligible for a PROD deletion as that was done already, but as I noted when I set that up: Fails WP:NHOCKEY; only Second All-Star Team in WHL, no professional experience. Kaiser matias ( talk) 01:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

@ GoodDay: How not? Have you even looked at the above sources? BeanieFan11 ( talk) 01:41, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
I'll consider, reconsidering it. GoodDay ( talk) 01:49, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify. Liz Read! Talk! 02:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Hypnotic (upcoming film)

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

Hypnotic (upcoming film)

Unreleased film that has been "upcoming" since this article was written in 2019 by a disruptive now-blocked user, and does not satisfy general notability or film notability. There is nothing in this article that either implies significant coverage or indicates a release date. The name-drops of a well-known director and a better-known star do not inherit notability. The mention of the start and end of principal photography is also a name-drop, because of the myth that films are notable after principal photography. What the guideline really says is that films are not notable before principal photography, and are only notable after principal photography and before release if production itself passes general notability. The article says nothing about production except that it happened, and the references do not provide independent or secondary coverage. The references are mostly announcements of signings and other advance publicity.

Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 deadline.com Advance publicity, announcing lead actor No Yes Yes No
2 collider.com Advance publicity before start of filming No Yes Yes No
3 hollywoodreporter.com Advance publicity, announcing a team addition No Yes Yes No
4 deadline.com Announcement about producers of film No Yes Yes No
5 variety.com Announcement of star as lead actor No Yes Yes No
6 deadline.com Announcement of signing of female lead No Yes Yes No
7 deadline.com Announcement of child star No Yes Yes No
8 deadline.com Announcement of two supporting actors No Yes Yes No
9 deadline.com Announcement of another supporting actor No Yes Yes No
10 deadline.com About layoffs at production studio, passing mention that film is still in production No No Yes No

This article belongs in draft space, and can be reviewed for article space if and when the film is released. (At this point it may be in post-production limbo.) I am not unilaterally draftifying it because it has been in article space for three years (where it was put by a noiw-blocked disruptive editor), and because it is adequately sourced although the sources are crud. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:03, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It is pretty clear there is a consensus to keep and that isn't likely to change, so there is no use in wasting any more editor time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:53, 30 July 2022 (UTC) reply

SleazyWorld Go

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

Insufficient significant coverage by reliable sources, fails WP:GNG Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply

– North America 1000 02:55, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Other than Billboard, I don't see them passing WP:RS. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • @ Dennis Brown: XXL is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources under the section for "Generally reliable sources". Descriptions there are rather contradictory, though. Above in the section it states, "These sources are generally considered reliable for use in music-related articles on Wikipedia", but heading the table it states that the criteria applies to album articles: "Generally reliable sources for album-related information". North America 1000 08:51, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply
Stereogum doesn't pass the sniff test. XXLmag, meh, I wouldn't have picked it to be. Billboard is fine. So it's on the cusp of being "multiple reliable sources". I'm not convinced. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:25, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply
Stereogum isn't listed on the album project's RS list, but probably should be; The Week has used it alongside The New York Times in its album roundup columns, for example. And Tom Breihan may be considered a subject matter expert at this point. Caro7200 ( talk) 13:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep brief mention covering new music in the New York Times, giving their opinion on him [17] and in Fader [18]. I think with the Billboard and just about all the sources, he's at notability, just by a hair. He's given two interviews to HipHop Canada already [19] and [20], not useful for notability, but he's getting traction outside the USA, so that adds a bit to it. Oaktree b ( talk) 03:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep: Stereogum is meh, but works for WP:GNG. However, XXL is a highly regarded hip-hop publication, with a magazine circulated on a consistent basis. Definitely counts for notability. — VersaceSpace 🌃 15:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_July_26&oldid=1102330520"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 25 July 27 >

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 no consensus. Indeed, more sources were added to the article, but the nominator and user that !voted for deletion have not revisited the discussion to assess the new sources provided. Ultimately, after two relistings and relatively minimal participation here, no consensus has ensued. North America 1000 05:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Chad_Richardson

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

Chad Richardson does not meet Wikipedia's GNG. He has very little press coverage, none of which come from reliable third party sources. This is a good example of unambiguous advertising or promotion. Son012189 ( talk) 23:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC) — Son012189 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:04, 20 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Fails WP:GNG; WP:MUSICBIO - woeful SEO, too. There's a lot of Chad Richardson's out there... Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 12:39, 21 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – With plenty of articles in reliable third-party sources, the subject meets WP:GNG. I've added a few more references and tried to tone down some of the more promotional material. Coverage includes articles about him in The Globe and Mail, The Standard, The Telegram, Jam! Music, Canadian Musician, Words & Music, The Newfoundland Herald and Patch. Also, he was profiled on the national news when he landed the role in Rent (A CTV portrait on the star of "Rent", CTV National News – CTV Television. 6 December 1997). Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 03:00, 22 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:03, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. Per WP:HEY. (non-admin closure) –– FormalDude talk 18:57, 30 July 2022 (UTC) reply

The One (Yandel album)

The One (Yandel album) (  | talk | history | 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 significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. Suggest redirection, but that was challenged. –– FormalDude talk 23:49, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. –– FormalDude talk 23:49, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 12:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    I don't know why it has to be deleted. I added the billboard chart and anyone can search for articles about it. This album has notoriety. So I don't why you want to delete it. It should stay. I have done other album in which some didn't even chart yet I was able to make it a valid page on Wikipedia. The One by Yandel should stay, especially since it is an album from one half of one of the greatest duos of all time in Reggaeton and in Latin Music. You could have looked for an article your self or at least add a tag saying it needs improvement. I have seen multiple album pages with 1 or no link. The pages didn't even have the chart history on it nor it had charted at all and those album pages exist. Yet, you want to delete one that did chart and did qualify as an album page on Wikipedia. I mean Billboard did an article about it so that should count as something. Here is an article about it. I hope this is good enough as I will make the effort to save this page. Also it has a page in the Spanish Wikipedia, so I think I can find articles on it. Even though it would be in Spanish, it still works as resources. Other Spanish music albums have mostly articles in Spanish anyways. DominicanWikiEdit1996 ( talk) 00:11, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    The Billboard article appears to be the only significant source, which suggests the topic is not notable. If you can find additional sources that contain significant coverage, I would be happy to review them. –– FormalDude talk 00:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    You can actually find links and references to articles on the Spanish Wikipedia. The album page has multiple articles that makes it notable. Its like I said, their in Spanish for the most part. I think the Billboard article is the only one in English. I don't know if you know Spanish but you can use a translator to read them and I could also add them to the page as proof of its notable. Other pages English Wikipedia have used articles in Spanish to proof their notable. Would you be ok with Spanish written articles? If you think those articles will be good enough would you remove The One by Yandel from articles for deletion? All I have to do is add the articles to the English page. DominicanWikiEdit1996 ( talk) 01:41, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    Update: So I added 3 articles, the one from Billboard because it's the only article in English I could find, and 2 articles in Spanish that makes this album notable. Because of what is written on them, I updated and wrote more information on the album's page. I hope this is good enough and that you can remove the deletion tag from the album page. I really want this page to stay as Yandel other albums are active on Wikipedia and this is also part of his history. I had also recently created two album pages for his his duo partner Wisin. I haven't any problems with those pages yet as they are also notable albums. This is history from the one of the greatest Reggaeton and Latin Music duos of all time. So every album they make whether it is as a duo or when they do separate projects, it will be easily notable because of their fame. Also, if there are little to no articles in English, there will, most likely be in Spanish due to the fact their that is the language they sing and rap. Latin People, Mostly Hispanics are their biggest fan based. DominicanWikiEdit1996 ( talk) 08:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - It reached high positions on the Billboard Latin charts and that is already good enough for WP:NALBUM. For such an established artist, the album is surprisingly low on reviews, but some of the articles used at Spanish Wikipedia could be used here if someone would like to add some translated excerpts, e.g. [1], [2], [3]. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 12:43, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    I have already added it to the page. You can check for yourself. I did use 2 of the links from the album page on Spanish Wikipedia. DominicanWikiEdit1996 ( talk) 13:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
Cool, but consider adding some translated text if you are able to do so, such as "Radio Hoy described the album as..." --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 13:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
I mean I think the page is as good as it is, but if you think I need to add translated text, then I could expand about how unique the album is and why he didn't have any featured artists in it. Also, we have not heard from you FormalDude about the changes in the article. Please let me know if the changes are good enough because I really want that deletion notice removed from that page. DominicanWikiEdit1996 ( talk) 00:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply
This type of debate has to stay open for about one week until an Admin decides the outcome. Hopefully a few more people will vote. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 13:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Meets WP:NALBUM with sources presented by Doomsdayer. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP ( talk) 00:26, 30 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    I have already added them if you haven't seen the page yet. I wish I had added those links when I created the page. I thought with the chart information it was good enough. However, FormalDude didn't think the same redirected it at first and then added it to articles for deletion. I think when it comes to Hispanic os Spanish music albums, people who know how to read and write Spanish should be the ones who decide if the Spanish music pages are valid or not. I am not gate keeping nor discriminating again anybody. But, it makes more sense since they can add Spanish articles to it while people who don't know nothing about the language can not understand articles in Spanish. They will only look for the ones in English for the most part. Most articles for these albums will mostly come in Spanish. Now I said people who can read and write Spanish. I didn't say Hispanics only. I know there are Hispanics that don't know Spanish for being raised in a non-Hispanic country and I know there are non-Hispanics that know Spanish well. I mean at the end of the day anybody can write and edit anything but Spanish music albums is a little more complicated for English Wikipedia. Now I don't know about FormalDude's ethnicity or what languages he speak but if he does know Spanish, he should have searched in Spanish instead of wanting to delete this page. If he doesn't know Spanish then I understand why he did what he did. But I have faith that by the end of the week the album page will stay. Thanks to the two wiki users that voted to keep it. DominicanWikiEdit1996 ( talk) 10:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Overall consensus is that the topic does not meet WP:GEOLAND. North America 1000 06:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Yusefabad, Ardabil

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

Mass-created by Passportguy ( talk · contribs) in 2009 based on an unreliable database https://tageo.com. There is something at the specified coordinates, but they are actually in East Azerbaijan Province, and the fact that this was not overwritten or redirected by Carlossuarez46 ( talk · contribs) when he mass-created Iranian village stubs is suspect. Neither of the Yusefabad stubs created by Carlossuarez46 matches this place. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 23:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • No evidence of legal recognition (i.e., incorporation or the local-law equivalent). Not a pass for WP:GEOLAND#1.
  • No reliable sources for this place at all, so it fails WP:V. Neither Citypedia nor Tageo are reliable, as can be seen not least from the fact that they have this place at the wrong location. Both appear to be Wiki-type user-created sources, and thus not reliable. Geonames is also an unreliable source for the same reasons. For the avoidance of doubt, no, a road having the same name as this supposed village is not real evidence of existence.
  • No significant coverage for passing WP:GNG, both sources are just bare-mentions of the name of the place.
Also worth mentioning that this is another case where mass-creation/ WP:MEATBOT violations have occurred, and are causing problems for us years after the fact. FOARP ( talk) 10:32, 18 July 2022 (UTC) reply
Point of information – 500 feet is an awful lot closer than half a kilometre. Spinning Spark 12:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC) reply
Spinningspark - Doesn't change the basic point, does it? No reliable source says this place exists. FOARP ( talk) 14:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC) reply
Plainly, it does exist. The satellite view shows that. What we don't have is a reliable source for what it is called. Spinning Spark 14:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC) reply
Spinningspark - Plainly, there are some buildings (farm buildings? a factory?) at that location, and that is all that can be truthfully stated. There is nothing that passes any notability or verifiability guide this here Wiki has. Can you imagine having this discussion in any other area of Wikipedia content?
  • "There was definitely a film of some description released on that day, we just don't have a reliable source for what it was called, who was in it, or even what its content was"
  • "There was definitely a book published, we just don't have a reliable source for what it was called, who authored it, or what it was about"
  • "There is definitely a species living in that location, we just don't have a reliable source for what genus it belongs to, what its name is, or what its characteristics are"
  • "There's definitely a person with that birthday, we just don't know what their name is or who they are"
It's only in the GeoStub field that we get this kind of argument.
PS - worth noting that there is no corresponding FA wiki article, because FA wiki has been much more aggressive in cleaning up the stub articles that got transposed from EN Wiki to their wiki. A lot of the FA wiki editors got pretty annoyed at EN Wiki for continually keeping these articles about places that basically just don't exist, and they were the people who ultimately went to Carlossuarez46 and told him to stop. FOARP ( talk) 14:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC) reply
I agree my rationale is weak, but please don't misrepresent it. I think we do know the name of the settlement for the reason I gave, so your analogies are straw men. Spinning Spark 16:34, 18 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark ( talk) 03:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Weak Keep. There is mention of the village in a British botanical expedition to the region from the 1930's. The account can be found here: https://doi.org/10.2307/4107686
It seems to be near a fresh water lake which may also have some significance in its own right. I suspect a Persian speaker could find better sources on it. It's hard though because of the neighborhood in Tehran of the same name. Chagropango ( talk) 08:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
I'm not convinced it is the same place. The passage you are referring to is on page 66 I think: "The road to Teheran is followed for 25 miles, when the track leading to Astara bends to the left along the shores of the freshwater lake at Yusufabad". The starting point for this journey is Tabriz and Teheran is to the southeast (ie the wrong direction for our Yusefabad). Google maps shows a small lake, Quri Gol, at about that location (37.9207, 46.7026) whereas there does not seem to be any lakes anywhere near our Yusefabad. Spinning Spark 09:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
In fact, we already have an article on it, Yusefabad, Bostanabad, and it is shown on gmaps at the western edge of the lake. Spinning Spark 09:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
Not only is the place mentioned in this document likely not the same place we are talking about, but it is also not WP:SIGCOV but instead just a passing mention and therefore does not sustain a WP:GNG pass. It is also not evidence of legal recognition as a populated place required under WP:GEOLAND#1 - for the avoidance of doubt Iranian Abadis are not a class of legally-recognised populated place but isntead just reference points used in the Iranian census. Using satellite photos to come to the conclusion that a set of buildings not even at the location in the article, but merely close to it, are a village, and not instead a farm/factory or other set of buildings, is pure WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH.
I'll add in here that the problems with identifying where this place even is (the co-ords used above are not reliably sourced) are exactly why this kind of article should not be kept since they simply trash the information space as to what places exist where and under what name. FOARP ( talk) 12:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete with the same rationale as every single other one of these. — VersaceSpace 🌃 14:47, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    Also, if there's no known name for this "village", there should be no article on it. — VersaceSpace 🌃 14:50, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the rationales for keeping this are not consistent with core policies, specifically WP:V and WP:NOR. The verifiability policy says that we cannot have an article on something unless there are third-party reliable sources about it, and that the burden of proof for this is on those who want to keep the content. This is a non-negotiable policy which cannot be overidden by editorial judgement or local consensus. For a populated place, to satisfy this we need at minimum a reliable source which says the subject exists and is a populated place. The citations in the article are to unreliable sources, and the other evidence provided here is to GeoNames and OpenStreetMap (user-generated content, and therefore unreliable). Claims that the subject might exist because there is a nearby road with the same name are original research, which has no place in Wikipedia. Hut 8.5 14:12, 30 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails GEOLAND and V. Avilich ( talk) 13:34, 31 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Looks like a borderline case that might have a better chance at surviving a second AfD as an article about the class of locomotives. Sandstein 16:23, 3 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Geelong and Melbourne Railway Company 0-4-0T Ariel (1855)

Geelong and Melbourne Railway Company 0-4-0T Ariel (1855) (  | talk | history | 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 individual locomotive. There's nowhere near enough coverage of this locomotive for it to be notable or to even write a real article. Cites nothing but a single database. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 19:56, 10 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 19:56, 10 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    It is currently a stub for a class of locomotives (that contained only one of that type built). I'll look at expanding it into more of an article with more references in the next day or 2. -- ThylacineHunter ( talk) 06:10, 11 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    It seems to have been created hastily due to issues re Template talk:Victorian rolling stock#May 2022, and I was hoping to find time soon to pad it out with more information. -- ThylacineHunter ( talk) 06:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    I see. It was unclear to me that this was meant to represent a class of locomotive, not merely one particular locomotive. Locomotive classes are generally notable, individual locomotives that aren't preserved are seldom notable. Moving the article name as suggested on the article talk page would be a good solution. I haven't had a chance to check the sources today, but I'll look at them later and if they show the class meets GNG (decent chance this is the case) I will withdraw the AfD. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 18:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep - seems to be borderline but there appear to be newspaper articles supporting the locomotive class. Deus et lex ( talk) 06:27, 16 July 2022 (UTC) reply

I'm hoping to be able to get more information when I can get access to the Railway Archives (currently not easily accessible to the public). -- ThylacineHunter ( talk) 01:01, 18 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 23:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Comment It's a 150 yr old, small tank engine. Seems to be a "series" of one locomotive. Probably of some interest to those rail geeks (ie. me), but not sure it's wiki notable (EEEEEE I love it!!!!). Oaktree b ( talk) 23:25, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment It's the only vertical boiler locomotive in Victoria, Australia and the 2nd locomotive built in Victoria.-- ThylacineHunter ( talk) 00:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    Okay. I don't see how that changes anything. Wikipedia notability is based on significant coverage in reliable sources. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 00:36, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for now, to allow ThylacineHunter a chance to find sources. NemesisAT ( talk) 12:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Per the discussion above of this actually being a class of locomotives, perhaps it makes sense to draftify this, to allow ThylacineHunter to expand this as time allows. -- Kinu  t/ c 17:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply

We Dreamed our Dreams

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

The article does not establish notability, apart from being covered by a couple redlinked bands. Google doesn't have anything about it either. - Poydoo can talk and edit 23:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - no evidence of meeting the GNG, if it did, it would have to be a WP:TNT situation anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 00:05, 31 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Chah-e Akrami

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

Mass-created Iran geostub by User:Carlossuarez46. The name contains chah (چاه, well), and the geocoordinates go to a subdivision of Yazd called Akramiyeh ( Persian: اکرمیه). Not sure if this subdivision meets WP:NGEO. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 22:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 22:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Fails WP:GEOLAND#1, WP:GNG. Not a populated legally-recognised community but instead just a reference point used in the census. And honestly, LaundryPizza03 we should just delete all of the "Chah" Iranian village stubs, since they all likely are just wells used as reference points in the census - here's a search that shows that there's about 300 of them, all of them stubs, all sourced to GEONet Names Server and/or the Iranian Census (both unreliable sources for whether a place is a legally recognised populated place). WP:BUNDLE is appropriate in the case of a single editor creating near-identical failing hoax/spam articles, wand that is surely the case here. FOARP ( talk) 09:02, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Truenose

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

All of the sources are from early/mid April this year. They all read like press releases, which can't be used for notability, and none are independent coverage of the subject. Company fails WP:NCORP. ~Styyx Talk? 22:16, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:42, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

AVADirect

AfDs for this article:
AVADirect (  | talk | history | 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 independent sourcing that is in-depth. Contenr derived from Press Releases was removed prior to AfD, so check history. Do see some coverage in Maximum PC but appears to be passing mentions only. Fails WP:NCORP Slywriter ( talk) 22:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

AMAX Information Technologies

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

A decade of adding Press Releases to an article. When the press releases are removed, no actual sourcing remains. Please check history for article before Press releases were removed. A WP:BEFORE doesn't show any significant coverage in books or papers nor news. Fails WP:NCORP Slywriter ( talk) 22:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Pan-Indian film

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

Proposing the article for deletion due to the fact that the subject is highly opinionated and biased. What constitutes pan indian film the information is already available in those specific movie article. No such movement started since 2015. Fostera12 ( talk) 14:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

The following independent reliable sources sources present significant coverage about the topic in hand:
  1. The 'pan-Indian' strategy of Telugu cinema Srivastan S, The Hindu (7 January 2022)
  2. Baahubali turns 5: How SS Rajamouli’s film changed Indian cinema forever: Manoj Kumar R , Gabbeta Ranjith Kumar, The Indian Express (11 July 2018)
  3. Allu Arjun’s Pushpa shows Telugu films have pan-India audience. Step aside, Bollywood Nidhima Taneja. The Print (16 January 2022)
  4. RRR, Pushpa, Liger, Radhe Shyam, Adipurush: Are pan India films the way forward? Juhi Chakraborty, The Hindustan Times (23 April 2021)
  5. New mantra for pan-India stories Prakash Pecheti, Telangana Today (17 June 2021)
  6. BigStory: Are pan-India films promoting too much violence? Bharti Dubey and Hemachandra Ethamukkala, The Times of India (23 April 2022)
"highly opinionated and biased" is not valid rationale for deletion. We write articles based on independent reliable sources. If such sources are opinionated and biased, then the same is reflected in the article. -- Ab207 ( talk) 08:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep No need of deletion as article is full of reliable sources. And all the films in it are notable. Deepika o ( talk) 15:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep It is evident that the term/film movement received wide recognition in the media and the critics. Also, there are plenty of sources that solely covers the topic. Jayanthkumar123 ( talk) 16:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: If the article seems opinionated and biased perhaps pursuing NPOV edits would be a better route to take than deletion. Chagropango ( talk) 07:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - NPOV is not a great reason for deleting an article on its own, especially when notability appears met and there is a better version restored. MaxnaCarta ( talk) 13:02, 30 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Multiple people proposed a redirect, and that remains an option which could be carried out by anyone. I am closing this as Keep, meaning Keep or Redirect, because there was no sentiment at all for Delete. MelanieN ( talk) 03:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Ruth Joffre

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

BLP doesn't seem to meet WP:NBIO - independent coverage is largely focussed on the book (Night Beast) rather than the individual. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:21, 9 July 2022 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn, thanks to the improvements made by CT55555 and Beccaynr. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:23, 9 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  1. https://coloradoreview.colostate.edu/reviews/night-beast/
  2. https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/ruth-joffre/night-beast/
  3. https://blog.pshares.org/night-beast-and-other-stories-by-ruth-joffre/
  4. https://mastersreview.com/book-review-night-beast-ruth-joffre/
Links to other reviews are here: https://bookmarks.reviews/reviews/all/night-beast-and-other-stories/
I have edited the article to mention her other books writing, and to include biographical information so that it is no longer just focussed on one book. CT55555 ( talk) 11:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC) reply
CT55555, Joffre does not appear to have written other books beyond her debut collection of short stories; her website indicates she has had other writings included in anthologies - does this seem like an accurate way to describe what you are referring to as "other books"? Beccaynr ( talk) 23:47, 9 July 2022 (UTC) reply
My bad, yes, I should have said "publications" I think they are not books. I've corrected it now. Also, I've avoided commenting on our different interpretations of meeting WP:AUTHOR as we see it differently, and I think that's OK, I think the discussion you linked to showed me there are different valid ways to interpret the criteria. Peace. CT55555 ( talk) 05:50, 10 July 2022 (UTC) reply
I think the discussion linked below that you started indicates that multiple reviews for one book with no indications that the work is significant or well-known, and no other basis to support notability means that a redirect to the book is supported by the guidelines. You had asked for feedback from other editors on this topic, and I created an article about the book, removed the redundant material from this article, and it now seems apparent that it is WP:TOOSOON for this article to be supported at this time. Beccaynr ( talk) 06:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Subject meets Wikipedia notability guidelines, with enough reviews and coverage to prove notability.-- SouthernNights ( talk) 14:36, 9 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Night Beast (short story collection). After a search online and at the WP library, I started an article for the book because it appears notable per WP:NBOOK, but there does not appear to be sufficient support for WP:BASIC or WP:AUTHOR notability for Joffre at this time. I have not found support for the first part of WP:AUTHOR#3, because I have not found reviews for other works nor indications that her debut collection of short stories is significant or well-known. I included two interviews in the book article, but these do not appear to have sufficient secondary content to support WP:BASIC notability. This article includes a self-published profile for biographical information and links to her own work (and there are more available at the WP library) in addition to the Night Beasts reviews, and it appears to be WP:TOOSOON for an article about Joffre at this time. Beccaynr ( talk) 20:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    This is not an essay, but I think this recent discussion at WT:AFD helps support my reasoning on how to interpret the WP:AUTHOR guideline for this author at this time: WP:AUTHOR is two decent book reviews enough? If additional secondary coverage about her and/or her collection of works is available to support this article, I will reconsider my !vote. Beccaynr ( talk) 21:03, 9 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    I found another interview and incorporated it into the book article: A Seattle writer on girlhood, 'queer sadness' and speculative fiction ( Crosscut.com 2020) but I think more secondary support is needed for an author article at this time. A redirect preserves the article history and will allow this article to be further developed when her notability is more clearly supported per WP:BASIC or WP:AUTHOR. Also, from my view, indications of a significant or well-known work could include winning a notable award, appearing on bestseller lists, receiving wide attention from national and/or international media, as well as other indications suggested by editors in the above-cited discussion. Beccaynr ( talk) 15:00, 10 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I had closed this as Keep but was asked to relist this AFD discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:45, 18 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 20:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect per Beccaynr. Will allow for easy recreation if the author becomes more notable later... Eddie891 Talk Work 14:16, 4 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per Beccaynr/Eddie891 & close ASAP. There's no reason to keep this open. Let's move along. Buffs ( talk) 15:24, 4 August 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Steven Brust#Dragaera. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Dragaera

Dragaera (  | talk | history | 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 WP:SIGCOV in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, and so this does not meet Wikipedia's WP:NOTABILITY guideline. There are some trivial mentions that use this as the alternate name for the Khaavren Romances, but does not provide coverage of this topic separate from that. Jontesta ( talk) 19:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:35, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Legion in popular culture

AfDs for this article:
Legion in popular culture (  | talk | history | 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 WP:SIGCOV in reliable third party sources to met Wikipedia's WP:NOTABILITY guideline. The substance WP:INDISCRIMINATE with lots of use of the word "Legion" without having any WP:VERIFIABLE connection. Previously nominated for being WP:OR with the promise that it would be sourced, and it simply cannot be because sufficient sources don't exist. Jontesta ( talk) 19:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta ( talk) 19:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Another TV Tropes style list of non-notable trivia. There is no discussion of the concept as a whole, and no sources that would allow this to pass WP:LISTN. The Keep votes in the previous AFD from 2010, which resulted in a no-consensus, were simple WP:ITSNOTABLE arguments, that would not really fly today. While the actual Legion (demons) article is pretty short and could probably stand to have some expansion on the topic of its impact on culture, there is nothing from this mess of a list that should actually be kept or merged. Rorshacma ( talk) 19:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 20:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete. The only thing most of these entries have in common is the word. Those I bothered to check had nothing to do with the biblical Legion. Clarityfiend ( talk) 20:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Typical TVTropes nonsense. If the topic has any potential at all, it's not going to be found here. TNT and start from scratch as prose in the main article. TTN ( talk) 22:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Honestly, the majority of the entries in this list have nothing to do with the stated topic. Instead, it is an indiscriminate collection of fictional groups and beings that have referred to themselves as "Legion". Furthermore, the vast majority of it is uncited. There is nothing worth preserving here. ― Susmuffin  Talk 23:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. There is a slight chance this can be a proper article, but WP:TNT applies to the current mess that fails WP:LISTN and WP:IPC. Wikipedia articles should be "lists of media that mention term X" (here, List of media in which Legion appears in or similar). Although it would be nice if we could figure out a way to transwiki stuff to TVTropes... (I am serious here). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:50, 31 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Lists. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:51, 31 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above reasoning. Any significant coverage of Legion's impact on popular culture should not take the form of a list but should appear on the article for the demon itself. Thanks for opening this AfD. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 16:57, 31 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Chah-e Reza, Kerman

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

Mass-created Iran geostub by User:Carlossuarez46. Name is of a well, and I'm not sure that the given coordinates are for a village. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 18:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 18:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete can’t we just mass delete his rubbish? Mccapra ( talk) 20:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Is this a legally recognised, populated place? No. It's name declares it to be a well, the source states it is an abadi (which is a class of locations that need not be populated and includes mere locations such as wells, pumps, petrol stations, farms, bridges, etc.). Therefore fails WP:GEOLAND#1, and also WP:GNG. We cannot do WP:OR based on satellite photos that could just as easily be showing a farm or something else, and even if it is a village, is it known by the name used in the article? Very likely not. Including GEONames Net Server as an additional source does not solve this problem as that also is an unreliable source.
Completely second Mccapra on this - all of these "well" articles should just be bundled up per WP:BUNDLE. FOARP ( talk) 09:24, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Evan Dorkin. North America 1000 06:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Milk & Cheese

Milk & Cheese (  | talk | history | 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 WP:SIGCOV on this topic to meet Wikipedia's WP:NOTABILITY guideline. Sources reveal trivial mentions referring to the author Evan Dorkin but nothing significant enough to create a reliable and substantial article about this particular work. Jontesta ( talk) 18:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect to The Magical Monarch of Mo. Sandstein 12:57, 4 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Mo (Oz)

Mo (Oz) (  | talk | history | 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 WP:SIGCOV to meet Wikipedia's WP:NOTABILITY guideline. There are trivial mentions, but nothing to build an article that is WP:NOT just plot details. Cannot be improved because there is no significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources that can provide out-of-universe context. Jontesta ( talk) 18:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta ( talk) 18:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I was going to immediately suggest Redirecting this to The Magical Monarch of Mo, but then I realized that the actual title doesn't even make much sense for the Redirect, as the country isn't part of Oz. Regardless, this should not be a stand alone article, as there is not a single source included in the article, and searching for sources turns up no actual significant coverage of it in reliable sources. I have to say my favorite part of the article is the fact that it includes a picture of a map that the land is not even on, with the caption that it should be on there - I got a chuckle out of that. Rorshacma ( talk) 19:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or merge with The Magical Monarch of Mo. To the closer if the outcome is either merge or delete, I ask that you transfer the description of Mo to that page in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE even if you have to establish a settings section for it. -- Rtkat3 ( talk) 19:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep notable subject. WP:ATD Lightburst ( talk) 02:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a valid argument in AFDs, particularly for articles that don't have a single source actually backing up any claim of being a notable subject. Rorshacma ( talk) 02:15, 29 July 2022 (UTC) reply
Redirect to The Magical Monarch of Mo @ Rorshacma: You are probably right it was the kid in me that IARd, it is likely better redirected to the novel. The novel has much more relevance, File:Princess Truella on a stork - Project Gutenberg eText 16529.jpg File:King Mo fights the Purple Dragon - Project Gutenberg eText 16259.jpg. Some sources do exist, but it would be a stretch of our notability guideline to piece them together for this fictional land. It is certainly not as notable as the Frank Baum's other fictional Land of Oz. Lightburst ( talk) 04:03, 30 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Chah-e Chalehi

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

Mass-created Iran geostub by User:Carlossuarez46. Name is of a well, and there is no community at the given coordinates. PRODded, but quickly deprodded because I added the wrong rationale. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 18:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 18:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all the ludicrous and dishonestly created rubbish from this editor. Mccapra ( talk) 20:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Fails WP:GEOLAND#1, fails WP:GNG, and even just responding to this has probably used 10-20 times more editor time that Carlossuarez46 used in creating it. FOARP ( talk) 09:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete — VersaceSpace 🌃 14:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Per all the above, and not meeting WP:GEOLAND MaxnaCarta ( talk) 13:06, 30 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I am unable to find evidence that this is the name of the community described in the article. Wells are not presumed notable under WP:GEOLAND. — Ⓜ️hawk10 ( talk) 00:35, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Robert Vaidlo. Liz Read! Talk! 23:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Rõmuuta

Rõmuuta (  | talk | history | 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 WP:SIGCOV in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, and so this does not meet the WP:NOTABILITY guideline. Jontesta ( talk) 18:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. There is consensus that the added sources are sufficient to showcase notability. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat ( talk) 23:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Time viewer

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

Couldn't find reliable secondary sources with WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:NOTABILITY guideline. There aren't reliable references to the concept of a "time viewer", making me concerned that this is an WP:OR compilation of concepts that an editor is subjectively comparing. (For example, a trivial mention from NASA that is referring to something very different from what the article purports to be about.) The only source is another online encyclopedia which isn't a reliable secondary source, and may be circularly pulling material from this WP:OR Wikipedia article. Jontesta ( talk) 18:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep in the newly rewritten form. Effectively, my vote is "delete" the old version per TNT (per reasons outlined by the nom applicable to the nominated version), with no prejudice to a rewrite, but with acknowledgement that the rewrite is already happening. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:42, 31 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as newly rewritten and extensively sourced by TompaDompa. A little too many redlinks for my taste, but it's now a good article on a demonstrably notable topic. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 20:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Per WP:HEY. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 14:51, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wireless configuration utility. Discussion had ended effectively with editors here making major changes to merge the article in question into Comparison of wireless LAN clients, and then followed up by a request to move the merged article to Wireless configuration utility. (non-admin closure) – robertsky ( talk) 07:17, 5 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Wireless connection management utility

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

Does not meet WP:SIGCOV. Cannot find this term in a reliable source. Kstern ( talk) 18:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Maybe it is better known under the name Wireless LAN client? We already have a Comparison of wireless LAN clients. I propose merging them. Petr Matas 20:44, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

I was bold and proceded with the merge, as the article in its current state was just good enough as an introduction to the Comparison of wireless LAN clients and no opposition to the merge seemed to arise. Petr Matas 04:47, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Should we rename the result now to remove the word comparison from its title? Some titles were proposed in the discussion above. Petr Matas 05:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Rename. In my opinion the intro is good enough for a stub and a comparison may be a part of a standard article. Petr Matas 05:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Rename I support the rename, given the changes to the original article in question and the resulting merge. Kstern ( talk) 14:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • I really don't know how to close this discussion since editors took it on themselves to not wait until it closed to make major changes in the article. Liz Read! Talk! 00:22, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    Give us some more time to discuss the new title and then close it as merge. 😉 Petr Matas 07:14, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Close as merge and just note that the editors are making the necessary changes. There's no need to keep this open. Buffs ( talk) 15:26, 4 August 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 04:25, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Charles Elmore Cropley

Charles Elmore Cropley (  | talk | history | 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 do not think the clerk of the Supreme Court is the level of position that makes someone notable. He is a low level background figure who has no actual government role. The coverage we have here is a listing from the Supreme Court itself of all administrative officers, an article that mentions him getting married, in a large set of such announcements that I do not think confers notability on any, and a news article on him dropping a bible during a presidential inauguration. This is just not enough to justify an article in Wikipedia John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. The Clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court (not to be confused with the law clerks) is the Court's most important statutory officer, and the OP's assertion that the Clerk "has no actual government role" is not true. We rightly have articles on many of the people who have held that office, and should aspire to develop ones on the others. This is obviously far from the most important judiciary-related biography in the encyclopedia, but is has a purpose, and there is no value in the idea of deleting it. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per above Andrevan @ 21:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:42, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Chah-e Allahdad

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

Mass-created Iran geostub by User:Carlossuarez46. Name is of a well, but there is something at the provided coordinates that could be a village. I removed unsourced content about an alleged murder that contained dubious information (The prime suspect behind the bodies is Wanye Al-ballshar[...] [who] uncovered the bodies; the population has declined by 2 million") and was accompanied by an image generated by This Person Does Not Exist. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 18:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 18:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Is this a legally recognised, populated place? No. It's name declares it to be a well, the source states it is an abadi (which is a class of locations that need not be populated and includes mere locations such as wells, pumps, petrol stations, farms, bridges, etc.). Therefore fails WP:GEOLAND#1, and also WP:GNG. We cannot do WP:OR based on satellite photos that could just as easily be showing a farm or something else, and even if it is a village, is it known by the name used in the article? Very likely not. Including GEONames Net Server as an additional source does not solve this problem as that also is an unreliable source. FOARP ( talk) 09:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: even if this is a village, it's almost impossible to verify whether or not it goes by this name. — VersaceSpace 🌃 14:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:36, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Chah-e Alam

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

Mass-created Iran geostub by User:Carlossuarez46. Name is of a well, but there is something at the given coordinates that could be a village. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 18:24, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 18:24, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Is this a legally recognised, populated place? No. It's name declares it to be a well, the source states it is an abadi (which is a class of locations that need not be populated and includes mere locations such as wells, pumps, petrol stations, farms, bridges, etc.). Therefore fails WP:GEOLAND#1, and also WP:GNG. We cannot do WP:OR based on satellite photos that could just as easily be showing a farm or something else, and even if it is a village, is it known by the name used in the article? Very likely not. Including GEONames Net Server as an additional source does not solve this problem as that also is an unreliable source. FOARP ( talk) 09:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Chah-e Akhundshafi

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

Mass-created Iran geostub by User:Carlossuarez46. Name is of a well, but there is something at the given coordinates that could be a village. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 18:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 18:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Is this a legally recognised, populated place? No. It's name declares it to be a well (according to Google Translate "Mullah Shafi's well"), the source states it is an abadi (which is a class of locations that need not be populated and includes mere locations such as wells, pumps, petrol stations, farms, bridges, etc.). Therefore fails WP:GEOLAND#1, and also WP:GNG. We cannot do WP:OR based on satellite photos that could just as easily be showing a farm or something else, and even if it is a village, is it known by the name used in the article? Almost certainly not. Including GEONames Net Server as an additional source does not solve this problem as that also is an unreliable source. FOARP ( talk) 09:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no evidence of GEOLAND Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Previous AFD concerned a different version of this page...this article was moved to this title after disambiguation page was deleted. Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Chah-e Ahmad

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

Mass-created Iran geostub by User:Carlossuarez46. Name is of a well, but there is something at the provided coordinates that could be a village. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 18:18, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment The prior AfD was for a disambiguation page with 1 entry. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 21:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Is this a legally recognised, populated place? No. It's name declares it to be a well, the source states it is an abadi (which is a class of locations that need not be populated and includes mere locations such as wells, pumps, petrol stations, farms, bridges, etc.). Therefore fails WP:GEOLAND#1. We cannot do WP:OR based on satellite photos that could just as easily be showing a farm or something else, and even if it is a village, is it known by the name used in the article? Almost certainly not. FOARP ( talk) 09:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Chah-e Bid, Rudbar-e Jonubi

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

Mass-created Iran geostub by User:Carlossuarez46. Name is of a well, but there is something at the provided coordinates that could be a village. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 18:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 18:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Is this a legally recognised, populated place? No. It's name declares it to be a well, the source states it is an abadi (which is a class of locations that need not be populated and includes mere locations such as wells, pumps, petrol stations, farms, bridges, etc.). Therefore fails WP:GEOLAND#1. We cannot do WP:OR based on satellite photos that could just as easily be showing a farm or something else, and even if it is a village, is it known by the name used in the article? Almost certainly not. FOARP ( talk) 09:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:51, 29 July 2022 (UTC) reply

AVL (engineering company)

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

Advertisement, no Reliable sources needed per WP:NCORP Assirian cat ( talk) 15:17, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Kings and Princes of Wales

Kings and Princes of Wales (  | talk | history | 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 recently created article mashes together unnecessarily two longstanding already existing articles: King of Wales and Prince of Wales. They are in fact two different topics. "King of Wales" was a very specific title used once in the 11th century. "Prince of Wales" had a very different usage on an ongoing basis from the 13th century. This article is at the same time unnecessary because of the two pre-existing articles and artificial. It's not a real topic. DeCausa ( talk) 17:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

This is a perfectly justified complete list of the rulers of Wales. It lists all the rulers of "Wales", which neither King of Wales nor Prince of Wales does.
The titles used are very varied and can't be split simply into "King" or "Prince". Multiple rulers claimed both titles among other titles, there is no clear-cut line. The title name gradually evolved but the function of the ruler was broadly the same.
Examples of varied titles:
Rhodri the Great: "began to reign over the Welsh" (843 AD)
Gruffydd ap Cynan: "king and sovereign and prince and defender and pacifier of all the Welsh" (in 1136)
Owain Gwynedd: Prince over the British nation (in 1146), King of Wales, King of the Welsh, Prince of the Welsh
Rhys ap Gruffydd: Head of all Wales (in 1197), Prince of the Welsh (in 1184), Prince of Wales
Changing the title of the page to "List of the Rulers of Wales" could be a potential option. Titus Gold ( talk) 17:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • They are not "rulers of Wales". They are rulers of part of Wales who adopted a title, either "king of Wales" in one instance or "Prince of Wales". The other examples given are spurious misuses of WP:PRIMARY sources - one of references to rulers of part of Wales. List of rulers of Wales already exists as well. DeCausa ( talk) 17:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and Rename per Titus Gold. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk) 17:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: The page List of rulers in Wales already exists. This whole shiskabob is pointless. Merge wherever, but otherwise it is pointless to have another list which covers the same topics. Curbon7 ( talk) 17:37, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    Rulers of Wales is about ALL the regional rulers of Kingdoms of Gwynedd, Deheubarth etc. and minor princes within Wales @ Curbon7, not the Prince or Kings of Wales. Would you mind having a detailed look at both pages before reconsidering that suggestion please? Titus Gold ( talk) 18:11, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    In reply to the previous question, "King or Prince of Wales titleholders" or "Native Kings and Princes of Wales'" could be options. The sources are translations of the original and yes would not hurt from further citation with additional sources.
    I would point out that King of the Britons only uses primary sources because additional sources are scarce. Many of them are cited as ruling all of Wales.
    I've renamed the regional rulers as Rulers of Welsh kingdoms as it is a more apt title. Titus Gold ( talk) 18:37, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • I've reverted that article back to the original longstanding name. It's an artificial move to support your objective here. that article is about any ruler in Wales not just the ruler of a "kingdom". The reality is that none of the rulers you want to put into this article can be differentiated. They are not "ruling all of Wales" except one or two in momentary instances. This is a POV exercise to support a nationalist contention, unsupported by secondary sources. DeCausa ( talk) 19:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    Please don't accuse me of having certain political beliefs, that's quite inappropriate. The commonality is that they have all have been described as Prince or King of Wales as per the title. My significant interest in Welsh history is my motivation. The name change was to better differentiate between the pages, quite obviously.
    I repeat: King of the Britons uses primary sources only because secondary sources are hard to come by for some ancient rulers. Regardless, you'll be pleased to hear that I have now added additional secondary citations that list the vast majority of the Kings and princes. I've also added a cited section explaining the general evolution of the title from King to Prince. Please feel free to have a look and suggest further improvements.
    Another alternative is to merge as suggested by @ Curbon7. King of Wales would probably be the most appropriate merger page. Titus Gold ( talk) 20:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Also, a duplicate of List of rulers of Wales. Peter Ormond 💬 13:05, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - as the "prince of Wales" isn't a monarch & Wales isn't an independent country. The title is held by the 'heir apparent' to the British throne & 14 other Commonwealth thrones. PS - When the time comes (due to the 2011 Acts, enacted in 2015), it'll be interesting to see what title a female heir-apparent will get. GoodDay ( talk) 15:13, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    I will copy relevant content over to King of Wales since there is a majority for deleting. Could someone else go ahead and delete Kings and Princes of Wales after I've done this then, please? Titus Gold ( talk) 12:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, though a selective merge of some information into the quite sparse List of rulers of Wales might not go amiss. But, while there were very famous and powerful Welsh princes in medieval history, this new article does appear to be a confusing mash-up. Sionk ( talk) 12:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    Ok, I've moved relevant content over ready for deleting the article. Titus Gold ( talk) 14:36, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The kings and princes of Wales were essentially rulers of the country, in other words the princes were sovereigns and the title was not honorary the way it is today. This is covered in detail at List of rulers of Wales, so I don't know why we need to create duplicates. Keivan.f Talk 11:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    Does someone want to go ahead with the deletion then? Think we've had enough input now. Titus Gold ( talk) 13:44, 29 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    There might be people who could actually be supportive of the idea. You never know. Also, if there's enough substance for an article and a list, then the splitting can be justified. But thus far, it hasn't been in my opinion. Keivan.f Talk 14:24, 29 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Elyzabeth Purwaningtyas

Elyzabeth Purwaningtyas (  | talk | history | 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:NBAD, lacks SIGCOV in reliable sources; not enough to satisfy WP:GNG . zoglophie 15:31, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Adv Ravi Vyas

Adv Ravi Vyas (  | talk | history | 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:NPOL never won any state or national election. TheWikiholic ( talk) 15:17, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Hi! The person has won election a few times, and I have mentioned the sources as well. You can find his name in official gov website https://www.mbmc.gov.in/en/corporator-info/ Under this article as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diveshksharmaofficial ( talk • contribs) 06:09, 30 July 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Harbor Real Estate

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

Seems to lack notability by WP criteria — billinghurst sDrewth 14:31, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

but…but… they’re active in the Dubai Chamber of Commerce! Does this count for nothing!?!?! Mccapra ( talk) 20:17, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete and they did a study!!! (Harbor Real Estate published a study in October 2009 showing that 61% of consumers who bought property in the years 2008 and 2009 were dissatisfied with the performance of real estate agents who brokered their purchases.). Puff piece. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
And they can't spell harbour. I'm the first boy to stick up for a Dubai article. I'll fight dragons to save any decent Emirates content, God knows we have few enough editors. Not this one. Oh, no. Not this one. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 05:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
American spelling? Oaktree b ( talk) 12:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
Yes, but it don't stop me teasing. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 12:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per WP:G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion). ( non-admin closure) Ovinus ( talk) 20:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Toriqul Islam Tusher

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

Promo piece (likely autobio) on a non-notable business person. Sources cited are just regurgitations of the same publicity material, and a search finds nothing that comes close to RS sigcov. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ANYBIO. Previously speedied, hence this AfD. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 14:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

MediBuddy

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

Promo piece on a non-notable business. Sources cited are all pure churnalism, and a search finds nothing beyond the usual directory listings, social media accounts, etc., none of which comes even close to providing RS sigcov. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ORGCRIT. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 14:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Sorry for inconvenience But i included all the valid citations in the Page. Yes, accidently i took it from draft, but it was an incident. as i was working on live page instead of draft. सार्थक उपाध्याय ( talk · contribs)

  • Delete Press-releases and the like, non-substantial, non-reliable coverage. Delete. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, Medibuddy is a well-known healthcare provider in India. I'm from India and know this company very well. Amitabh Bacchan is the brand ambassador of this company and it was founded in 2013. [1] You can search about this on google India and get a reliable source. The sources attached in the article are trustable and reliable. Gyankalekha ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ Srivastava, Moulishree (2015-12-23). "Medi Assist invests $1 mn in Mobiefit". mint. Retrieved 2022-07-27.
  • Your attached reference seems to be a bare-mention in an article that is mostly about the parent company. Please present your best WP:THREE refs to show that this article meets WP:SIGCOV. - MPGuy2824 ( talk) 08:13, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    Brand ambassadors don't help with notability, we need extensive coverage of the company. Oaktree b ( talk) 13:36, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I'm unable to locate any references which meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing ++ 21:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawing my nomination given that nobody other than myself as nom recommends deletion and it appears voters are not changing their mind - hence it is unlikely an outcome other than keep will be made. Please ping me on my talk page if any issues. Thanks. (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarta ( talk) 03:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Schloss Gobelsburg

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

Advertising masquerading as article, unfortunately not clearly enough for me to confidentiality nominate as G11. Has been tagged as advertising for 13 years without improvement. Also woefully lacking in notability and so does not meet WP:NCORP. As no editing can overcome a lack of notability in the absence of meeting another criteria, a clear case for delete. MaxnaCarta ( talk) 12:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep. The sources that were in the article weren't sufficient to prove notability, but a very brief Google search brought up multiple instances of significant coverage, some of which I've added. MaxnaCarta, when you find an article with sources that don't seem to prove notability, before AfDing it, do a WP:BEFORE. You're correct that editing can't overcome a notability issue, but sources can. valereee ( talk) 14:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Snow Keep The sources are legion. The Falstaff link cited in the article's broken, here's the actual link. Grief, the Google Books links alone are, on the first page, enough to get across GNG three times over. Yes, the article sounds promotional, but that's editing, not AfDing... Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 15:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    Weird, the other link works for me, and this one comes up as a separate one. valereee ( talk) 17:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply
I did do a before check. I don’t think that trivial references in a wine magazine are sufficient enough for a Wikipedia article. Which of these do you feel constitutes sigcov? Please do not assume I didn’t do a before check. Thanks. MaxnaCarta ( talk) 21:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment In light of the Keep submissions, I decided to examine my nomination again. I will concede that there are some sources available. One of my back-end hobbies on Wikipedia is to go through the articles tagged as promotional. Given there are tens of thousands, I tend to be selective with nominating for deletion, be it PROD, CSD, or AFD. This is because the project will never make a dent in the backlog if I did this, as each still needs to be reviewed and there is nothing worse than having mass amounts of articles nominated indiscriminately. After looking at the sources available, I probably could have just edited the language of the article to improve its tone, as I do for most of the promotional maintenance tags I seek to remove, and left it at that. While it would have been easier to just leave the article without nominating, now I have nominated I see no reason to close as Keep yet. If you look through my rather extensive AFD log, you will notice I frequently change my !vote from Delete to Keep and vice versa, based on evidence. On this occasion, I am confident in allowing my nomination to stand as delete for now, unless evidence demonstrating my source assessment below is incorrect. Based on the below source assessment table, which is comprised of an example of sources from Google books, news, and the article itself - I am not seeing significant appropriate depth of coverage to justify inclusion. The coverage mentioned is invariably trivial. Granted, there are almost endless trivial mentions of the company, however this is not sufficient to establish notability. I still do not see any deep or significant coverage providing discussion, commentary, or evaluation of the company. I therefore do not believe it is possible to write a complete or in-depth article about this winery without using inappropriate sources or original research. MaxnaCarta ( talk) 08:39, 20 July 2022 (UTC) reply
Source Significant? Independent? Reliable? Secondary? Pass/Fail Notes
Parkers Wine Buyers Guide Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Single paragraph in a wine buyer's guide. This is not significant coverage. Does not address subject in detail.
Caldron Magazine Red XN Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Red XN This is an opinion piece about wine generally that does not address the subject in significant detail.
A to Z of an Alcoholic Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Just listing in a directory of wineries.
Riesling Rediscovered Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Trivial mentions, does not address subject in detail
Gobelsburg Red XN Red XN Red XN Green tickY Red XN Sales website listing products
Real Review Red XN Red XN Red XN Green tickY Red XN Just listing the companies existence in a sentence or two, not a reliable source
Wine-Searcher Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Green tickY Red XN Blogs are not reliable sources. This is a review blog site and place to buy wine. Not a reliable source suitable for an encyclopaedia,
Falstaff Red XN Green tickY
Green tickY
Green tickY Red XN This source may pass most criteria, but again this source is almost entirely about wine and not the company itself. It does not address the subject in significant detail either. There is little within the article that can then be verified by this source. It is a review of a wine made, not a detailed profile of the business itself. There is nothing wrong with including a source like this, but I do not think it goes towards notability.
Wine and Spirits Red XN Green tickY
Green tickY
Green tickY Red XN Most of this article focuses on the CEO, and does not provide deep overview, commentary, or discussion of the company.
Total qualifying sources 0
There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements


  • Comment This article is about an 850-year-old vineyard and winery with documented history to 1171. That's an exceptionally credible claim to notability. It's fine to argue that better/more sources are needed, and to tag the article for such, but the likelihood of such a subject not being notable is extremely low. valereee ( talk) 13:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I had hoped to avoid this timesuck. Here's Parker's Wine Buyer's Guide - the 7th Edition. and here's a full page feature - in depth coverage - in CaLDRON Magazine (BTW, Caldron identifies Schloss Gobelsburg as 'one of the oldest wineries in Austria'). NOW, here's almost a full page dedicated to the winery in the book Riesling Rediscovered: Bold, Bright, and Dry By John Winthrop Haeger while 'The Wine Bible' gives a couple of pages to Schloss Gobelsburg, calling its wines 'exquisitely intense, shockingly pure rieslings and grüner veltliners'. Let's turn to Stuart Pigott's book, Best White Wine on Earth: The Riesling Story, where we learn that Schloss Gobelsburg was at the apogee of its fame in the 1960s, when it made wines for the Cistercian Abbey of Zwettl. I'll skip over revered wine writer Oz Clarke's FIVE books that mention Schloss Gobelsburg, and neglect to highlight 'Hugh Johnson's Pocket Wine'. Let's look at Jason Wilson's travelogue through wine producers, 'Godforsaken Grapes: A Slightly Tipsy Journey Through the World of Strange, Obscure, and Underappreciated Wine' which talks to how Russian soldiers looted wine from Schloss Gobelsburg during the War. Dammit - the wine even slides sinuously into the pages of 'Killing Eve'. No doubt there are those who would cavil, saying these are mere 'listings' in 'directories', but they're wrong. There are pages and pages dedicated to this famous, notable and celebrated winery. There's almost no serious wine guide or writer that touches Riesling that does not cover Schloss Gobelsburg - with many telling the story of the winery, the oldest winery in the Danube region, with a documented history back to 1171, its charismatic owner and his dedication to making the finest of wines. Not notable? Do me a lemon. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 13:49, 20 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow more comment on whether sources already identified show notability and/or if there are other sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk) 13:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep one of its wines is reviewed in this guardian piece, Austrian press coverage here and here and innumerable entries into wine publications. Mccapra ( talk) 20:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    Please can you show me where my source assessment table is incorrect or show me your own? I haven’t denied some sourcing exists, I just don’t think it’s significant coverage. MaxnaCarta ( talk) 22:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ MaxnaCarta, so you're tripling down, here. Okay. Relying on an online source assessment for a subject that is this old doesn't make sense. You have to balance it with some common sense. Is it even possible, much less likely, that a subject that has an 850-year documented history isn't notable? The fact you haven't found that documented history online doesn't mean it doesn't exist. What are the actual chances that a subject that was first mentioned in 1171 isn't notable? 1171. Almost no one was keeping records then. 99.9% of people didn't know how to write. But someone, in 1171, thought it was worth writing down that there was a vineyard and winery at this place. And someone kept those records. It's practically the definition of 'likely notable'. Again, it's reasonable to tag it for sources. But tripling down on AfD? No. Valereee ( talk) 01:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Valereee How am I tripling down? I change my AFD vote all the time. I loathe digging in. This is a discussion, and that's all I am engaging in. It's coming up to the seven days and I am just asking for someone to demonstrate significant coverage. I am not being stubborn in the face of evidence my argument for deletion is blatantly incorrect. I've speedy kept my own nomination before. I disagree that this is an obvious case. I have no ideology when it comes to AFD, and I am asking for a dialogue rather than being told I am "digging in" or that my nomination is a "time suck". If it gets closed as keep, I don't care. I'm trying to learn also. Assume I am here for that reason rather than simply trying to stubbornly argue and "triple down". Please point to a policy that states something old "must have sources" and therefore that is an argument for keep. Regardless of age, we still need appropriate sources to demonstrate notability and I do not see them. If closing admin agrees with the other votes, that is perfectly okay with me. MaxnaCarta ( talk) 01:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Arion Sulemani

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 12:37, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep it, will be a key player soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nzs9 ( talk • contribs) 05:05, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Move to draftspace doesn't look to pass WP:GNG, but is a young player who may well achieve more and get more coverage soon. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 07:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, I could find no secondary sources from a search, and there are none in the article. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 02:21, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 13:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

John Ralph Anstee

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

Poorly sourced article on non-notable person; lists (without citing) only two sources, both of which are authored by the subject himself, and a search finds nothing even approaching RS sigcov. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ANYBIO. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 12:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Australia. DoubleGrazing ( talk) 12:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Nice looking chap, not in any way notable. WP:NOTMEMORIAL and doesn't pass WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 12:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete agree with all above. Poorly formatted article, looks like it was copied from another location and plunked here. Oaktree b ( talk) 13:28, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. XtraJovial ( talk • contribs) 13:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Terrible article of course, but he was an Officer of the Order of Australia. I think this probably qualifies per WP:ANYBIO #1. Note that it is almost certainly higher than the OBE, closer to a CBE, which we have generally considered to qualify. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:06, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    Never knew that CBE makes one inherently notable per ANYBIO. Live and learn... DoubleGrazing ( talk) 10:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    It certainly has usually been held to. User:Necrothesp/List of AfD discussions for individuals with a CBE or above. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:41, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    However, Anstee was awarded Officer of the Order of Australia, while CBE is Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire - a rank above officer, OBE. And he is not otherwise notable/presumed notable, which may/probably played a role in those CBE nominations? Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 10:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    As I've already said above, the Order of the British Empire (which has six grades) and the Order of Australia (which has four) are not directly equivalent. An AO, the second highest grade of the Order of Australia, is probably more equivalent to a CBE, the third highest grade of the Order of the British Empire, than an OBE, the fourth highest. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:44, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:BASIC, the presumption of notability of being one of the 3,453 awardees of the 3rd rank of the Order of Australia is just that, a presumption, BASIC still needs to be satisfied. Mztourist ( talk) 05:56, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) –– FormalDude talk 03:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Suraj Patel

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

Semi-procedural nomination: Articles about this apparently-perennial candidate have been brought to AfD 2 times already (the first AfD is about an unrelated subject who shares the name), and each time the consensus has been deletion due to lack of coverage other than routine election press. The same can be said of the level of coverage this time around as well. The argument could be made that the amassed coverage across the elections adds up to GNG, but I think this needs to be brought to community attention given the number of times the article has been discussed. signed, Rosguill talk 01:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and New York. signed, Rosguill talk 01:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    Previous AfDs aside, Patel is now competing in a radically redrawn congressional district. The two other competitors are both powerful Democrats of long standing - Jerry Nadler and Carolyn Maloney. Patel's campaign ads are more visible than theirs [at least to this resident of the district]. Finally, in the 2020 Democratic primary, Patel achieved 39.3% to Maloney's 42.7% [6]. Whether or not he wins, he is not inconsequential. Tedency ( talk) 13:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    Under no circumstances should this be deleted, it provides valuable nominee information, and not winning the prior primaries should have no bearing on this, I would suggest that it's removal is being discussed
    due to political competition reasons, flagged by said adversaries. 79.68.229.172 ( talk) 17:42, 16 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Nothing notable, seems to enjoy running for election, hardly enough on which to base an article here. Oaktree b ( talk) 19:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, appears to have a number of real references. Andrevan @ 23:58, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Quite apart from the fact he hasn't been elected, he fails WP:NPOL - even being serially unelected. That's the trouble with democracy - you don't get elected, youse is nobody. There's no other grounds for notability I can see. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 13:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    Notability is determined by coverage in reliable sources. Perennial candidates who never win can be still notable sometimes. Andrevan @ 22:02, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - WP:NPOL specifically states that unelected candidates can still be notable if they meet the GNG, which Patel does based on significant coverage from several reliable sources cited in the article, including the New York Times. Hatman31 ( talk) 21:41, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Per WP:GNG, a subject is presumed to be be suitable for a stand-alone article when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent. Coverage here from The Hill discusses the subject and their political campaign. This is hence what I consider to be significant coverage from a perennial source which has by consensus been found reliable. Same for this piece in the New York Times. A Google search shows further coverage from the NYT in the first page of results. Of significance is this coverage is only two weeks old, demonstrating the subject has been covered for a sustained period of time. There is countless examples of further significant coverage within the article and online, but as the sources shown already demonstrate a meeting of GNG there is no need to explain my assessment of these sources. Per WP:NPOL - being an unelected candidate does not guarantee notability, though such people can be notable if they meet GNG. As this individual undoubtedly meets GNG per the above, there is no tenable argument for deletion. MaxnaCarta ( talk) 07:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Femke ( talk) 15:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Federal Science and Technical College, Yaba

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

Secondary schools are not notable on there own and there is nothing else in the article to establish notability the article doesn't make note of anything notable but does provide sources to support some basic information about the school. See this discussion for the deletion of other articles that follow this same format. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Federal_Government_College,_Ganye. Not sure if this is important or not but it appears that these articles were made as part of a contest with gift cards as prizes. Previous articles from this contest were deleted Federal Government College, Ohafia and Federal Government Girls College, Zaria. This might explain why so many of these articles were produced so quickly. Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝) 07:23, 12 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep — I’ve been staying away from this mass deleting contest between you and Mccapra without doing a proper search. I have been able to find sources about the school (crisis, achievements et cetra) without stressing it.
Adediran, Ifeoluwa (10 September 2019). "Parents at Nigerian college kick as PTA 'imposes' N50,000 hostel fee". Premium Times. Retrieved 13 July 2022.
Nnaike, Uchechukwu (30 June 2022). "FSTC Principal Seeks More Involvement of Parents in Students' Security". ThisDay. Retrieved 13 July 2022.
Abayomi, Amaka (29 October 2015). "Accommodation crisis rocks FSTC, Yaba". Vanguard. Retrieved 13 July 2022.

Ask me to provide more and I will; including books and government annual report. Best, R E A D I N G Talk to the Beans? 09:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Hey @ Reading Beans, before I nominated these articles I did look for sources. I do this for every AfD, PROD, and page patrol. That said it does appear that I missed a couple for this article. I went back and retraced the searches I used and was only able to find the sources that were already in the article. I was able to find your sources using a Google News search. I went back and checked the other articles that I nominated and wasn't able to find anything that wasn't a list, a dead link, or a passing mention. So most of these articles still don't satisfy WP:ORG. You're much more knowledgeable about this area than me and are much better at finding sources then I was. I know a lot about psychology and plants but not a lot about schools in Nigeria.
The way I see it we have some options here going forward with all these articles.
  • Proceed with the AfD for the articles that can't pass notability and keep the ones that can.
  • Tag the current AfDs that we think might pass notability WP:NSCHOOL, withdraw the AfD from those articles and then send them to draft to be worked on.
  • Merge all the articles, including the previously deleted ones into one large article WP:NHS.
I promise I'm not trying to be a jerk and I genuinely thought that these articles (including this one) were eligible for AfD in part due to the mass deletion of all the other schools. If you have any other ideas for what we should do going forward I'm all ears. Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝) 00:15, 14 July 2022 (UTC) reply
Dr vulpes, I am a typist for a secondary school in Nigeria and during this exam period, I am usually busy and barely have time to find sources. All I ask for is for proper scrutinisation before nominating (we all make mistakes). Continue doing your great job. Best, R E A D I N G Talk to the Beans? 17:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC) reply
Reading Beans, for the articles that were PROD'd, you can request restoration at WP:REFUND should you find new references for these articles. Liz Read! Talk! 06:13, 15 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:31, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep There is not much content but that is not a reason to delete; the other articles were deleted but they were not all from the same sources. This was one of a group of proposed deletions I looked at and most of the sources were incidental mentions or related to incidents rather than coverage of the school; I did not object to most but opposed two - Federal Science and Technical College, Orozo (significant coverage enough to be taken to AFD instead of PROD, but only from one source) and this, with multiple significant sources which suggest that it is one of the more notable schools of its type. Peter James ( talk) 21:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Vanguard/Peter James. Let's close this one out. Buffs ( talk) 15:27, 4 August 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 00:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Fire and Ice (board game)

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

I was unable to find much RS on Google, News, Scholar, Books, and BGG besides a single ref that might not be reliable, and IMO it doesn't meet GNG. VickKiang ( talk) 07:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply

@ BOZ: Should the award be considered a ref to count towards GNG? It’s just borderline notable to have its own WP article, and Mensa is very well known, but each year there’s multiple winners? I’m not sure if it’s major enough to count towards one ref GNG, is there any article from Mensa mentioning this game? VickKiang ( talk) 21:55, 20 July 2022 (UTC) reply
Related current discussion: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Board_and_table_games/Sources#Notable_Games_Awards. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:29, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Based on the discussion on awards, I suppose the award counts as one ref for WP:GNG. But 2+ is needed (even at 2 it's very borderline), so still strongly support Delete. VickKiang ( talk) 04:53, 30 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Zurich University of the Arts. Liz Read! Talk! 04:19, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Swiss Design Institute for Finance and Banking

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

Nothing notable per WP:GNG Assirian cat ( talk) 11:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Gist Limited

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

Fails WP:NCORP/ WP:SIGCOV. Namedropping clients makes it seem a promotional article. Sources cited are routine business announcements. Kleuske ( talk) 10:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Transportation, and United Kingdom. Kleuske ( talk) 10:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: An article nominated for deletion 4 minutes after it was created, which seems too quick to consider whether it is appropriate, what alternatives exist, etc.? In this case, the article creation is presumably triggered by last week's sale announcement, but is basically copied from Linde_plc#Gist_Limited, so needs source attribution whether a distinct article is decided to be appropriate or not. AllyD ( talk) 10:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    • If no actual sources exist, WP:BEFORE can be done rather quickly. I did not know about the copy-issue, but it serves to illustrate lack of independent notability as a subsidiary. Kleuske ( talk) 11:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    This is true. Further improvements have been made since the article was created, as I considered the original sub-category to be lacking for Wiki. Darkieboy236 ( talk) 13:18, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    This has been further addressed with further improvements to the new page.
    This page should not be deleted. Adamtosek ( talk) 10:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Gist will soon change ownership, and therefore will be more or less irrelevant as a subsidiary of Linde plc. It will become a subsidiary of Marks & Spencer and may well again change ownership in the future, and therefore an independent article is more appropriate. I am currently adding to the article to improve it and further establish its importance and relevance. Darkieboy236 ( talk) 11:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    Agreed - an independent article is now appropriate following the recent news of company acquisition. Adamtosek ( talk) 10:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete You sort of lost me at "offers supply chain services including end-to-end management and customer fulfilment through transport and warehousing." to be honest. Add salient details of acquisition to Mars and Spencer, delete this promotional article about a WP:NORG failing company - job done. BTW, an entry exit solution is more elegantly a door. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 13:06, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    It is/was as per the sub-category on Linde plc. Darkieboy236 ( talk) 13:11, 26 July 2022 (UTC) Darkieboy236 ( talk) 11:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Sources lack independent content, so the subject doesn't meet WP:NCORP. ~Styyx Talk? 23:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    This has been addressed. I have removed content from previous page and made updated additions to this page. Adamtosek ( talk) 10:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Most of the attached stations look alike they are business directories or paid promotions And some citations are of their own website. Gyankalekha ( talk)
  • Delete The sources are failed to pass WP:NCORP, It is having funds related news or PR content. MickeyMouse143 ( talk) 09:24, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    References including the news agency Reuters and the financial publication Morning Star are cited. Darkieboy236 ( talk) 12:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete References that rely on PR or other announcements fail the criteria for establishing notability. Other references are PRIMARY sources. None of the references meet notability criteria, topic fails NCORP. HighKing ++ 17:07, 30 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 14:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ✗ plicit 11:34, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Marsha Levick

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

While her career is undoubtedly varied, celebrated and successful, Levick isn't notable per WP:GNG. As a lawyer she isn't a clear pass, certainly not under WP:NCORP neither as an adjunct professor under WP:NACADEMIC. Her list of awards must fill that wall nicely, but they don't help establish notability and, crucially, we lack "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 09:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, United States of America, and Pennsylvania. Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 09:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:COMMON if anything. From what you are saying our notability criteria are thoroughly screwed up. She is recognized as a leading expert. Her awards are not a joke. In any case, contrary to the nom, significant coverage in independent sources does exist, even in books. Loew Galitz ( talk) 16:40, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    • P.S. WP:ANYBIO: The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field. Loew Galitz ( talk) 17:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Academic work cited in this book. Covered in this book. Work cited again in this book. Significant coverage in the Philadelphia Inquirer here, in the Times Leader here, quoted in the Philadelphia Tribune here, quoted in the Washington Times here, in Bloomberg here. There is more coverage in the Florida Times here. The subject has been established as notable through significant coverage in independent and reliable sources. She hence meets WP:GNG. She also meets WP:NACADEMIC, not because of her job as a lawyer or adjunct professorship, but because her research has had a significant impact in her scholarly discipline. This is demonstrated by the first page of Google Scholar here - which shows dozens and dozens of peer-reviewed studies, many co-authored, published in reputable law journals in many prestigious universities. Her work has also been cited in several books and dozens of papers, a perusal of Scholar is also needed, but I get a substantial number of hits in the Australian Lexis Nexis also. Lastly, she received a highly prestigious academic award or honour at a national or international level. These are listed in the article. MaxnaCarta ( talk) 10:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per MaxnaCarta. Significant sources are available. ~ EDDY ( talk/ contribs)~ 13:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Jacky Liew

AfDs for this article:
Jacky Liew (  | talk | history | 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 AfD over at Chinese Wikipedia was closed as delete. From what I can see from the last AfD here at enwiki, the debate was mostly around the sources. People suggest that he meets GNG but all of those sources are not reliable at all. Because press releases on Chinese media don’t usually indicate that it is a press release, I will go over each source here:

  • The founder of Malaysian foodie Shi Gongzi who laid the foundation for the “Five Origins of Malaysian Cuisine”
    • This is a dead link. archive is here suggesting a repost from Economic Information Daily
    • Economic Information Daily is a repost from an article by eastday.com (archive link).
    • In a section that explains his supposed awards and accolades, the rewards cannot be found or attributed on the internet.
      • “他亦是第一个由皇宫授勋“卓越服务徽章”” (He was also the first to be awarded the “Outstanding Service Badge” by the Royal Palace.) A Google Search brings up nothing of the exact wording, except for advertising articles about Jacky Liew, and some as names for rewards from companies to their workers. NOTE: The badge actually exists, but has no media coverage for Jacky Liew actually recieving them beside being in advertising articles. See below for more analysis
      • “此论说，2011年，获得中国国际研讨会优秀论文奖” (This theory, in 2011, won the China International Symposium Outstanding Paper Award) See Google. There is no international symposium outstanding paper award.
    • The article mentions “且还是马来西亚制造许多“第一”的鼻祖” in its lede. (And also the originator of many “firsts” made in Malaysia) but none of the “firsts” were actually claimed. If this was real, they should at least give one example.
  • The Rise of Malaysian Foodie “Shi Gongzi” - archive link
    • “有人说,在大马不认识食公子,定是没有社交或出来用餐的人” (Some people say that if you don’t know this foodie in Malaysia, you must be someone who doesn’t socialize or go out to eat.) - Sure, where are all the reliable sources from malaysian media? This is just blatant advertising.
    • “就连大学论文都指出,他是马来西亚第一个以美食家称誉的作家” (Even university essays point out that he is the first author in Malaysia to be known as a foodie) - Sure, where are the essays at?
  • The first author in Malaysia known as a gourmet, “Sik Son”
    • No page author or editor. “来源：网络” (Source: Internet)
    • Also notice this sentence “如今虽已脱离平面媒体的他，仍专心研究起大数据与智能科研的学说理论” (Although he has left the print media now, he still concentrates on the theory of big data and intelligent scientific research) - no mention of the specific type of scientific research or big data carried out by Jacky Liew. Seems to be just using a common buzzword used for advertising in China.
    • All of these article cover some part of his early life, or before he became a foodie, but none of the articles show the name(s) of the author. If these were not written by Jacky Liew himself or someone with a conflict of interest, the articles should at least have an interviewer. This specific source does not have any author at all.
  • The scientific research of the God of Cookery-Foodboy re-defines the new food industry with artificial intelligence - archive link
    • Note that this article does not have a page author or editor. “中关村在线 转载” (ZOL repost) suggest a repost but this cannot be found anywhere else on the Internet.
    • “与孔子、曹操、杜甫、苏轼、张岱、李渔、金圣叹、袁枚等八位古代美食家并称” (Together with eight ancient gourmets including Confucius, Cao Cao, Du Fu, Su Shi, Zhang Dai, Li Yu, Jin Shengtan and Yuan Mei) - All of this is nonsense. These are poets, warlords, writers, and politicians that are respected in history. What qualifications does he have to make him comparable to the ancient Chinese scolars?
    • Nothing in this article is specific. There was no actual research topic or research findings but just buzzwords being tossed around. Except for one, “就以他在2000年,阅读过这么一篇由中国生产力中心出版《能力杂志》刊载类似大数据资讯统计文章” (In 2000, he read such an article published by the China Productivity Center, “Capability Magazine”, which published a similar big data information statistics article.) Translation is probably inaccurate, but the only specific thing I can find from this article is about how he read a thing.
  • The originator of Malaysian gourmets, “Shi Gongzi”
    • Revisiting this service medal thing, I think it is at here - “Medal for Outstanding Public Service”, and you cannot find any media coverage in Malaysia about this medal being given to him. See Google. I’ve tried using Chinese and English, no results are reliable media sources.
    • The author information in the page suggest a repost from http://www.rongmeiwang.cn/, except Google fails to find the supposedly original article.
    • Disclaimer on the bottom reads “The content above (including the videos, pictures and audios if any) is uploaded and posted by the user of Dafeng Hao, which is a social media platform and merely provides information storage space services.”
  • Truly Nyonya Malacca, a work handed down by the world’s gourmet master Shi Gongzi
    • Repost from sdnews - these two articles even have the same editor!
    • “各国为他创建的维基,便有十数个,中国百度、快懂、搜狗百科选入他与古代美食家，孔子、曹操、杜甫、苏轼、张岱、李渔、金圣叹、袁枚并峙的现代美食家” (There are more than a dozen wikis created for him by various countries. China’s Baidu, KuaDao, and Sogou Encyclopedia have selected him and he is comparable to ancient gourmets, Confucius, Cao Cao, Du Fu, Su Shi, Zhang Dai, Li Yu, Jin Shengtan, and Yuan Mei.) - This is so obvious I am not going to say anything.
    • Same “中国国际研讨会优秀论文奖” (China International Symposium Outstanding Paper Award) bullshit.
  • A Biography Review of the Gourmet “Malaysian God of Cookery, the Originator of Shi Gongzi” - achive link
    • “后被各国“维基”收录，译成15种语言及中国百度、快懂、搜狗各百科选入和古代美食家，至圣先师孔子、军事家曹操、诗圣杜甫、北宋大文豪苏轼、史学家张岱、戏曲家李渔、文学家金圣叹、散文家袁枚并称的近代华人美食家” (He was later included in “Wikis” of various countries, translated into 15 languages, and selected in China’s Baidu, Kuaidi, and Sogou encyclopedias. He is a modern Chinese gourmet together with the ancient gourmets, the most holy teacher Confucius, the military strategist Cao Cao, the poet Du Fu, the great writer Su Shi of the Northern Song Dynasty, the historian Zhang Dai, the dramatist Li Yu, the writer Jin Shengtan, and the essayist Yuan Mei.) - Look, surely foodies usually get praised, but none of them get praised like this. All these articles using the same “creative” praise by listing notable historical people really makes me wonder who wrote all of this, since none of them have a page author.
    • “世界美食家里，论名气，资历及才华，他是半点也不逊” (To the international foodies, in terms of fame, qualifications and talents, he is not inferior at all.) - If he has got that much fame, where can we find the coverage by non-Chinese media? Does anyone seriously believe that having articles about him in several languages of Wikipedia count?
  • Big data of the God of Cookery, Gourmet, and World Food Master
    • “当然,能同时被各国维基的标准收录,通过中国审核的百度、快懂、搜狗等百科选进,与中国古代美食家初祖伊尹、孔子、曹操、苏东坡并称的近代美食家,史记也不过是十数人” (Of course, being included in the standards of wikis of various countries at the same time, selected by Baidu, Kuaidi, Sogou and other encyclopedias reviewed by China, and a modern gourmet who is comparable first ancestor of ancient Chinese gourmets, Yi Yin, Confucius, Cao Cao, and Su Dongpo, makes him one of the few people in history) Same bullcrap.
    • No coverage of the supposed “Big Data”
  • Jacky Liew: This “foodie” is not ordinary, the first anniversary of the launch of the biography of “Shi Gongzi Classic”
    • “2008年，因其在马来西亚美食文化领域的卓越服务贡献，获得第十任国家元首颁发“社会卓越服务勋章”、“最高统治者贡献奖章”，更是第一个被召见进皇宫记述统治者生活的作家、美食家。其后，在第十一届最高统治者御前，荣膺“世界美食大师”殊荣。同时，他也是被世界数十国语言维基、中国各百科，作为马来西亚第一人，入选与古代八大美食家，孔子、曹操、杜甫、苏轼、张岱、李渔、金圣叹、袁枚并峙的近代华人美食家。” -> if you run this through Google translate, you will find the same service medal bullcrap, the Confucious crap, and the “listed on several Wikipedias” crap.
    • Still no page author.
  • The first author “Shi Gongzi” in Malaysia to be known as a foodie
    • “因其贡献优异被第十届最高元首授予社会卓越服务勋衔” - Service badge crap
    • “如今虽已脱离平面媒体的他，仍专心研究起大数据与智能科研的学说理论，这正是他一大转变” - word for word copy from another source with a different title.
    • No page author.
  • A food god ancestor who loves his wife
    • “并授予“社会卓越服务”勋衔” - same service badge thing
    • “然而，在一个雨夜，当他开启房门，见门柄挂着一个饭盒，第一次以为不知是谁送错。到第二天，门把手一样有个饭盒，便留意起这是怎一回事，直到发觉这是位女大学生的房客” (However, on a rainy night, when he opened the door and saw a lunch box hanging on the door handle, he thought for the first time that he didn’t know who sent it wrong. The next day, there was a lunch box on the doorknob, and he paid attention to it until he realized that it was the tenant of a female college student.) - please note that the sentence was not grammatically correct and the google translate output had to be tweaked to make the output conprehensible. But it is more important to note that such an anecdote occurs on a page with no author. Is there an interviewer who wrote this story? No. It was Jacky Liew himself. Some of these articles even publish original photos that cannot be found anywhere.
  • Today’s Agriculture College
    • Just a database entry equivalent. Nothing significant here.
    • I also love how Jacky Liew is conveniently highlighted for us, and that is the only page, as if the uploader had any intentions other than to preserve a magazine.

There were also linguistic elements that I picked up suggesting one person wrote all of the articles, including but not limited to, missing subjects in a sentence, run-on sentences, and similiar uses of certain transitions. But I think the linguistic argument would be pretty weak (especially on enwiki), so I will not go into details here.

Overall, the article fails GNG because all of the sources are not reliable and the websites were likely paid to publish these kinds of articles missing factual details and full of unreasonable praise. 0x Deadbeef 09:29, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Likely COI creation. Only claim to notability is what looks like a minor award which doesn't have its own article but is simply included in a very long lists of such medals. It's hard for me to search this subject, AGFing that 0xDeadbeef did a thorough BEFORE. valereee ( talk) 12:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    On COI concerns, if one visits his official website at [8], links to the various wikipedia articles about him feature prominently above the fold, and also what appears to be his version of the enwiki article if the subject (and/or connected accounts) have their way. – robertsky ( talk) 04:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete That has to win an award for being the most thought-through, thorough and analytical nomination for deletion of all time. An absolute delight to be able to cry, joyously, 'Per Nom!'. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 13:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete same as last time, trying hard but not there. Source analysis is helpful. Oaktree b ( talk) 13:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: and would not be opposed to a WP:SNOW close. –– FormalDude talk 15:06, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: the discussion is repeated as the 2nd time AFD before, the repetition is meaningless, the deletion in chinese wiki does not mean english wiki need to be delete, furthermore, in Wikipedia:Repeated AfD nomination limitation (failed proposal). the previous discussion is NON CONSENSUS, it shall not be notimated again since the last date to pass the page is 12 JUNE 2022. The rush to deletion can be the Wikipedia talk:Overzealous deletion.
KINDLY ATTENTION TO THAT. Arrisontan ( talk) 15:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
You appear to be referring to a failed proposal from over fifteen years ago? Valereee ( talk) 17:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
Then why the page still exist? It exist as a guidelines, if the proposal for deletion can be appear the next day after the previous Afd is passed, then it will open for precedent for anyone to do it so. It will cause a lot of workload and unneccessary discussion. As a result, an overzealous deletion appeared. Arrisontan ( talk) 01:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: Sock confirmed on meta. meta:Special:Permalink/23568716#Arrisontan@zh.wikipedia 0x Deadbeef 03:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
It existed as an archive for a failed proposal aka historical record, also since it is a failed proposal, it is not policy or guideline that we need to adhere to. Also, Wikipedia:Overzealous deletion is an essay, aka opinions by some editors and again not policy or guideline. Justanothersgwikieditor ( talk) 04:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: I went through 0xDEADBEEF's source analysis and mostly agree with the analysis. A lot of sources which are supposedly copied from other sources with no byline. Some articles have the same author and are basically a direct copy. Most articles are also user contribution and not by the websites. The medal given to Liew is likely to be Pingat Khidmat Masyarakat Cemerlang (Medal for Outstanding Public Service) which is ranked 22th out of 26 medals at Orders, decorations, and medals of Negeri Sembilan, aka an insignificant award. While the recipients for the medal is reported as a statistics, note that the medal is at a state level and not national level. The amount of medals given each year show the insignificance, see 98 for 2022 55 for 2021 (note there is much lesser medals awarded for the year) 107 for 2020 Justanothersgwikieditor ( talk) 03:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:38, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Mazraeh-ye Moruji

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

An AFD discussion already closed with a consensus to delete due to it failing WP:GEOLAND#1 here ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mazraeh-ye Baqr Sheybani) but the closer declined to delete due to the proposer's failure to tag this article when bundling. After discussing with the closer on their talk page I am re-nominating it. I believe the !votes already cast by @ Johnpacklambert and VersaceSpace: and myself still stand in this AFD as well and need not be repeated. FOARP ( talk) 07:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. FOARP ( talk) 07:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This place does not meet even the very low notability guidelines for places. Nothing has changed since the last dicussion. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete For historical reasons I have a deep-rooted loathing of stubs based on single references to 'databases' or gazetteers. Not sure why the close couldn't have gone ahead, BTW. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 13:17, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Name contains mazraeh (مزرعه, farm) and there are no coordinates to identify this place. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 22:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete — VersaceSpace 🌃 14:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:00, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Damien Fonoti

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 03:35, 16 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep - Passes GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 12:10, 16 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:02, 16 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Per sources added to article which show he is notable in Oceania. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk) 17:58, 18 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep given that the driving force behind this purge is a change in notability policy, articles should be tagged and given reasonable time for improvement rather than simply deleted. -- IdiotSavant ( talk) 06:42, 21 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, I'm not seeing evidence of the sourcing necessary to pass WP:GNG. The OFC article, which might not be a secondary source, is the only thing I could find that provides SIGCOV, all other sources in the article or which I could find from a search were either database listings or only provided passing mentions. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 00:25, 22 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was draftify. Karl Twist, you may want to take a look at WP:BLUDGEON. Sandstein 16:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Pact of Vengeance

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

Sources fail WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. –– FormalDude talk 06:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. –– FormalDude talk 06:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note to closing admin - If by chance this film page is considered for deletion based on the consensus could we please just re-direct it to Leo Fong#Film career thus preserving the history etc. and then at another time we'll spark things up. Many thanks Karl Twist ( talk) 09:13, 18 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I think the film is notable enough. There's been a fair bit of work done on this by mainly 2 editors> even though I'm not in a agreement with how the other main editor has done things, I still note the effort!. As the film has already made some waves and been noted in the right places and was only released this month, it will go on to achieve much more cult status. I can guarantee this. Leo Fong aka Mr. Low Blow was a cult figure in B grade and guerilla filmmaking. Len Kabasinski is too. Due to the fact that this is Leo Fong's last film and he died early this year on 18th of February, I can see the attention on this film already. Thanks. Karl Twist ( talk) 09:22, 18 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Being potentially notable in the future is not sufficient. Moving to draftspace would likely be the best choice if that is the case. –– FormalDude talk 09:37, 18 July 2022 (UTC) reply
      • Reply I disagree, there's already a history with a lot of work by 2 editors. Even if the article page here is found to be not notable, 3 other editors have made edits. There's a lot of history. Many pages, much of them films are redirected to another page. There are also other articles that reference the film. Best to preserve history, put a note on the redirection page that there should be a discussion first before the page is taken off re-direct. That's the way to do it! Karl Twist ( talk) 10:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC) reply
        • A move to draftspace also preserves the history of the page, but I'm not opposed to a redirect. –– FormalDude talk 11:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify / Redirect, as was my original intent when I reviewed this at NPP, but this was refused, so now we're here. WP:TOOSOON, only one possible limited release at a film festival next month, no independent critics reviews - the only people who have seen the film so far are sponsors. Heck, my pup has had a few films show up at local film festivals. This one's 90 miles from where it was shot. AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark • sniff) 04:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Reply to the above - From what I can see, it's made a fair bit of commotion and there's an article about it in a magazine. Yes, it was only released this month and with a slot in a Fest next month and others, it will be easily be going the same way of Challenge of Five Gauntlets and with Leo Fong's death passing it. I have already said that it should stay but for what ever reason it comes to the crunch, then a redirect for the present. It's pointless putting it into draft as there are already multiple notable articles that link to it and the re-direction to Leo Fong the section can be expanded there as well.

Not sure what 90 miles have to do with this or your pup. Throw it in if you want but it doesn't lessen anything. Now, if we were talking about cats? They can play piano. Karl Twist ( talk) 06:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC) reply

I'm just trying to get the film notability above WP:MILL / WP:HOLE and the millions of videos. When it reaches multiple film festivals and not just the nearest one. This is similar to voice actor convention appearances where the person just travels to the one within driving distance for the day, or when a garage band gets a gig at a county/state music festival a few hours away. AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark • sniff) 15:55, 20 July 2022 (UTC) reply
Reply to the above - Oh I think it's above WP:MILL / WP:HOLE . It's been mentioned in this early time on the necessary sites. Well more than a great deal of other films here on Wikipedia. A film fest of lack of one doesn't lessen the value. Karl Twist ( talk) 11:25, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - So below is what the page looked like when I had edited before the other editor came in. Here and below

And this is what it looks like now, here and below

With both of them, they have much more refs than a great amount of movies here. I believe it scrapes in. Karl Twist ( talk) 06:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC) reply

I'm the "other editor" in question. AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark • sniff) 15:49, 20 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

As discussed on the draft talk page, AV Club, Action Elite, Radio Times are just supplying IMDb database information about the film. Radio Times even says it's pulling its info from IMDb. Action Elite is just reprinting the trailer summary and the posters. So at this point they are contributing nothing towards notability. When AV Club or Radio Times puts out a real review from a critic, then you can revisit. AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark • sniff) 15:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC) reply
I don't know - I think WP:TOOSOON and the lack of independent reviews are logical reasons for draftification. XtraJovial ( talk • contribs) 20:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify The film will most likely pass notability guidelines upon release, but as of now it does not. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:42, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    Well if the consensus leans away from a keep, why not just have it on re-direct? It is pointless having it on draft. It should be a working link. There's no sensible reason given to have it on draftify as opposed to a re-direct. Karl Twist ( talk) 05:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    The reason would be that the draft can continue to be improved upon with these newer sources, ideally, more post-release critics reviews and reception / future screenings and video release. Ozone Nightmare is a critics review from a Patreon sponsor. Horror News article was just a preview based on the trailer, and PW Mania spotlighted the one wrestler who had a bit role in the film. Louder than Sound focused on a single band that contributed a track to the film. These aren't really significant coverage from independent reliable sources. AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark • sniff) 15:24, 30 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    Reply to AngusWOOF, well there's more to the film than just the Ozone Nightmare review or the Horror News review and PW Mania mentioning " one wrestler who had a bit role in the film" or "Louder than Sound focused on a single band that contributed a track to the film". You appear to be a bit selective on how you are trying to make a case. There's much more to this film as I have stated. And there's also the Cinecutre review on December 8, 2022 - ¡LO NUEVO DE LEN KABASINSKI!: Trailer de “Pact of Vengeance” con Leo Fong y Jon Mikl Thor. por Xabier Esquíroz. Tailer reviews or film reviews or whatever, the anticipation has been noted. If the closing admin's decision leans away from a Keep then the sensible thing to do is have it on re-direct to Leo Fong#Work with Len Kabasinski. There is a Work with Len Kabasinski subsection there. At present and in addition to Leo Fong's page there are the Jon Mikl Thor, Diamante, PB Smooth and Matt Hannon pages that link to it so far. So we have working links to that page! Better to redirect if the consensus is not keep. This is what happens with many films etc. Karl Twist ( talk) 09:19, 31 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Chiranjeevi Jetty

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

This article was re-created 3 days after its 2017 deletion following AFD, by the same article creator (blocked a few months later for ( WP:NOTHERE). The original article isn't in the Wayback Machine, so unclear how close it is to the original. As before, he's a minor functionary in a political party, lacks WP:SIGCOV, and fails WP:POLITICIAN. Storchy ( talk) 07:29, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. Storchy ( talk) 07:29, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Still non-notable. Agree with above. Oaktree b ( talk) 13:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete As per the above - no notability, more text in the references section than the article. Fails WP:NPOL; WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 14:35, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. As an administrator, I can view the old deleted version — and while it was structurally somewhat different than this, there isn't any particularly meaningful difference in content, so it would be a tossup whether it was speediable or not. (I would have speedied, but some other administrators might not have.) This does not make any claim that he would pass any of Wikipedia's subject-specific inclusion tests at all, and is not referenced even remotely close to well enough to claim that he would pass WP:GNG instead of having to pass any SNGs. Bearcat ( talk) 12:24, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per nom, totally agree with him. He is far from passing WP:GNG MickeyMouse143 ( talk) 09:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:16, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Dil Haari

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

Tagged for notability since March, this Pakistani TV drama fails WP:GNG with no clear presentation of notability and none on search. Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 05:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete  – Only this source can be argued upto mark. Other significant source is categorized by publisher as Latest Happenings making it unreliable. Apart from these sources, there's nothing significant, independent and reliable available on the internet. Thanks AHatd ( talk) 12:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 07:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Glory of Heroes

Glory of Heroes (  | talk | history | 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 GNG Zafir94 ( talk) 05:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. "《勇士的荣耀》刘响明中式泰拳激情对战传统泰拳" (in Chinese). Sina Corporation. 2016-04-17. Archived from the original on 2022-07-25. Retrieved 2022-07-25.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "The Glory of Heroes, of the WLF's hall-level fighting event warrior, the first of the six games of the year, ended on April 2 in Pengcheng Shenzhen. Qiu Jianliang, Tie Yinghua, Deng Zeqi, Yilong and other top domestic players appeared one by one against foreign teams including Alex Pereira, Enrique Kerr and Jiang Tongchai. The Tang Dynasty band added to the fun, the atmosphere was hot, and it was unsatisfactory. The second leg of the Glory of Heroes will also start again on May 7. Not only will the above-mentioned boxers return, but also the comeback of the WLF world kung fu king Yang Zhuo, which makes boxing fans look forward to it."

    2. Chen, Yanni 陈艳妮, ed. (2018-01-12). "峨眉传奇战略布局首次曝光！或将超越昆仑决武林风" (in Chinese). Xinhua News Agency. Archived from the original on 2022-07-25. Retrieved 2022-07-25.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "The Glory of Warriors, with Guo Chendong and Dadongxiang Glory Alliance as the core, has a market valuation of nearly 300 million yuan at the beginning of its founding, but after all, the new GOH is still too young, and is out of the martial arts style. After the embrace of the system, the new GOH wants to become a hall-level event, obviously there is still a way to go, but its future is undoubtedly full of hope. At present, Kunlun Jue, which has completed the B+ round of financing through the method of "burning money", has successfully operated at the world's top level for four years. elder brother."

    3. Zhou, Chao 周超 (2016-05-01). "《勇士的荣耀》邱建良显档次 杨茁战K1世界挑战者" (in Chinese). Sina Corporation. Archived from the original on 2022-07-25. Retrieved 2022-07-25.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "After "Glory of the Warrior" emerged from the old "Wulin Style", it is ready to create a brand new high-end brand. Because it is a tower built on the original "Wulin Style" platform, "The Glory of the Warrior" has both the original The excellent side of the "Wulin Style" competition also inherited some of the original "Wulin Style" problems that need to be resolved. For example, the referee's laxity in penalty decisions was undoubtedly exposed in Yilong's game."

    4. "《勇士的荣耀》后生可畏 邱建良都不想跟他打" (in Chinese). Sina Corporation. 2017-02-26. Archived from the original on 2022-07-25. Retrieved 2022-07-25.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "Xing Tianwu Qi Han Wenbao, who has emerged after the two battles in "The Glory of the Warriors VI" and "The Glory of the Warriors-Rise" in New Zealand, is fierce and skilled, but he is also a 1997-born teenager under the age of 20."

    5. Zhao, Zhenlu 赵振鲁 (2018). "勇士之战 荣耀廣州". 拳击与格斗 (in Chinese). Jilin Publishing Group [ zh. Archived from the original on 2022-07-25. Retrieved 2022-07-25 – via CNKI.

      The abstract notes: "On January 13, 2018, Beijing time, the four-month "Glory of the Warriors" festival season finally ushered in the final battle in Guangzhou after the fierce battles in Luoyang, Jinan and Wudang Mountains. . That night, 6 world-class kickboxers who stood out from the qualifiers and semi-finals fought each other in the arena of Guangzhou University Town Sports Center, in order to symbolize the highest honor of the warriors in the GOH welterweight, bantamweight, and second light Fight for 3 gold belts."

    6. Han, Congcong 韩聪聪; Wu, Lingyu 万凌宇; Wu, Hejian 吴核坚 (2019). "中国传统武术在现代兵击运动中的应用". 体育风尚 (in Chinese). ISSN  1674-1552. Archived from the original on 2022-07-25. Retrieved 2022-07-25 – via CNKI.

      The abstract notes: "In the "Glory of the Warriors" Shanghai Station at the end of July 2018, not only a bloody fighting competition, but also a traditional weapon full-armor fighting competition was held. The duel between the two players on the field of electric, light and flint is eye-catching, reappearing the master style of the ancient warrior Fenglin Huan, and also pulling the audience back to the ancient battlefield of golden horses and iron horses. The video of the match spread like wildfire on the Internet, and this new form of fighting has attracted much attention among many martial arts enthusiasts."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Glory of Heroes ( simplified Chinese: 勇士的荣耀; traditional Chinese: 勇士的榮耀) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 06:49, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per Cunard who has actually done the research. Thanks! ~ Kvng ( talk) 14:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep due to the as always outstanding work by Cunard in proving notability. Great work MaxnaCarta ( talk) 13:10, 30 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Alessia Patregnani

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

Alessia Patregnani

Actress who does not meet general notability or acting notability. Created in draft space by a single-purpose account, then moved to article space when autoconfirmed, then moved back to draft space by User:Praxidicae as not ready for article space. Then moved back to article space by originator. The article makes no mention of significant coverage. A check of the references shows that they are not significant coverage, but verify that she exists and is an actress.

Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 cines.com A movie database, lists Blood on Melies Moon Yes No Yes No
2 voice123.com Lists her availability as a voice actress No No Yes No
3 tcm.com States that she was music coordinator in Capturing the Friedmans No No Yes No
4 ilsussidiario.net About her ex-husband, mentions their marriage and divorce Yes No, passing mention Yes No
No No Yes No

Verifiability is an important policy, but so is notability, and she does not meet general notability. A review of the filmography includes only one work that is the subject of a Wikipedia article, in which she was the music director, and one in which a movie database verifies that she acted.

Work Comments Wikipedia Article Remarks Major Role
Petali di Rosa No No
Capturing the Friedmans Music director Yes Not listed as actress No
Blood on Méliès' Moon No Role is verified No
I piccoli maghi di Oz, No No
Brute No No
Fredericka No short film by this title No No
Danny & the Deep Blue Sea No No
Aurora: All is Well No No
Don Matteo Television series Yes Not in list of recurring cast No
Fratelli detective No No

She does not have multiple major roles. The article and the references do not establish notability. She may be notable now or in the future, but this article should not be in article space. It should be in draft space, where it was. I am not moving it unilaterally back to draft space because that would be move-warring. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I'm marking this as CSD G7 since the article creator is asking for deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Gebauer 1934.M GKM

Gebauer 1934.M GKM (  | talk | history | 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 fails WP:GNG. A BEFORE search revealed no SIGCOV in RS. The cited sources fail WP:SPS so there's no claim of notability. Chris Troutman ( talk) 04:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC) reply

contribs) 20:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC) reply

I object to the proposal for deletion due to no significant coverage. This firearm was used by several notable aircraft, and was the basis for tank-mounted designs that saw use before and during WWII. It saw service from 1934 to 1942 in the Hungarian Air Force and is mentioned in the book "Biplane to Monoplane Aircraft Development 1919-39"
A Google search for Gebauer 1934.M GKM nets 70,300 results. Admittedly, not all will be relevant (junk pages and bots), but that's no small number.
Here are a few that are relevant for coverage:
http://www.hungariae.com/Gebauer.htm
http://metdetails.com/catalog/dnepromodel/guns/135/3588-gebauer-tank-machine-gun-193437m
https://hungarianweaponryww2.wixsite.com/hungarianmilitaryww2/single-post/2018/08/07/aviation
http://www.airwar.ru/weapon/guns/gebauer1934.html
https://guns.fandom.com/wiki/Gebauer_machine_cannon
Those are all from the first page, and even include a resin kit for the weapon.
From the second page:
https://alternathistory.com/pulemet-gebauer-1934-m-gkm/
https://heroesandgenerals.com/forums/topic/49247-hungarian-faction-complete-tech-tree/
https://www.google.com/search?q=Gebauer+1934.M+GKM&client=firefox-b-1-d&ei=XuTMYsb6GP-hqtsP7dSGyAo&start=10&sa=N&ved=2ahUKEwjGoYa9rvL4AhX_kGoFHW2qAakQ8NMDegQIKhA-&biw=1600&bih=756
So obviously there is coverage. Hungariae is a well-known site for Hungarian weaponry that has been around for 13 years, if not more. Airwar.ru has a decently long article with several images of the weapon installed on aircraft. Whether the fandom page is reliable or not is up for debate, but it's a decently long article about all of the Gebauer MGs. Perhaps, like fandom, Wikiwand ( https://www.wikiwand.com/it/Gebauer_(mitragliatrice)), and El Gran Capitan ( https://www.elgrancapitan.org/foro/viewtopic.php?p=497986), the Gebauer MGs need to go in one article rather than in separate ones. I can see an argument for that and would be glad to start work on it if that's the general consensus.
As far as SPS being an issue: That's a large chunk of the web, especially about topics such as this. Wikipedia itself is filled to the brim with references to personal sites. Any journal articles are likely behind paywalls and in Hungarian or German. It's not like a medical topic where you'd expect to see weigh-in from the AAMA or NHS Tengu99 ( talk) 00:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The more that I think about it, maybe there really isn't enough to justify an article by itself, but what if all of the Gebauer MGs were listed under the Ferenc Gebauer article? Would that be better? Tengu99 ( talk) 00:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete None of the websites identified above appear to meet our requirements for reliable sources. For example Hungariae appears to be an anonymously authored WP:SPS, others are links to forums and wikis, etc. I can't find any better sources via quick Google and Google Books searches. There might be better sourcing available offline, but we can't keep an article based on hypothetical sourcing: offline sources need to be actually identified for them to be considered. As for merging to Ferenc Gebauer, a few concerns: 1) That article, too, is in such a bad shape in terms of referencing that I wouldn't be surprised if it was AfD'd very soon 2) given that there's really nothing reliable sourced in this article, I'm not sure what would be merged. Adding a sentence with {{ citation needed}} tags doesn't really accomplish much of anything. - Ljleppan ( talk) 10:04, 16 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:32, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply

So, I may well be out of place adding this section to this discussion, as it's more of an argument to head off an AfD for the Ferenc Gebauer page before that happens rather than for this particular article, but I feel that the remarks about the growth of Wikipedia articles are valid for both.
There are potentially good sources for Ferenc Gebauer, at least in regards to his involvement with Danubia and weapons development, here:
http://real-j.mtak.hu/11405/4/Haditechnika%20%202012_4_teljes_red.pdf
http://real-j.mtak.hu/11405/5/Haditechnika%202012_5_teljes_red.pdf
Those weren't the easiest to find, but not the most terrible. There may well be more in other Hungarian and German sources, but it will take some work digging through records and the sources listed in those articles, hopefully by an expert. Someone with quality access to the Bundesarchiv in Germany or the Hungarian Military History Archive could probably find a decent amount of information on Ferenc.
Maybe information for a patent by Ferenc and Pal ( https://patents.google.com/patent/US1985493A/en) will be useful, but I'd have to do a bit more research on that as someone would have to positively identify the link between it and the 1934.M GKM, though it might make for a short line in the Gebauer article.
I argue that this is how Wikipedia articles grow. They may start small with few and easy to find sources that may not be the most reliable, but as more people take interest better sources are found and more information added.
I do get that a lot of web sites aren't a traditionally scholarly source of information. Hungarie, though respected in some communities, doesn't list his sources. Fandom is...iffy? If I were writing a paper then I wouldn't cite it, so I get that. However, I don't think that an article should necessarily be deleted until a more exhaustive search of sources can be conducted. Tengu99 ( talk) 02:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC) reply
Fandom is not iffy, there's a well-established consensus that it is unreliable as self-published user generated content; see WP:FANDOM. Again may well be and could probably find is not sufficient to establish notability; the sources need to be actually identified.
It's great that that you found better sourcing for Ferenc Gebauer, but that doesn't really solve the problem where there's nothing in this article that could be merged to Gebauer with a reliable citation. If you do find something in a reliable source, I'm not opposed to merging that. But as it's right now, I don't see what the potential merged content would be. Ljleppan ( talk) 08:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC) reply
Currently adding better sources for both articles. Please have a look. I know it's not much so far, but even an expert author is having to go through a lot of archives to find info about him. Tengu99 ( talk) 03:57, 21 July 2022 (UTC) reply
Added more sources from Hungarian documents. Tengu99 ( talk) 23:34, 21 July 2022 (UTC) reply
I don't read Hungarian, so it would be great if you could give a brief description along the lines of WP:THREE of what the top-3 sources you found are, why they are reliable and in how much detail they discuss the article subject. Ljleppan ( talk) 13:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Database for the Range of Weapons Designer Ferenc Gebauer and Categorization of Firearms Designed By It
- Covers this firearm and others designed by Gebauer. Military Historical Notices Number Volume 125, Issue 3, p.677-715. From the Electronic Periodical Database Archive, Budapest. https://epa.oszk.hu/00000/00018/00289/pdf/EPA00018_hadtortenelmi_2012_03_677-716.pdf
  • At the Danube: Hungarians in the 20TH Century (1918-2000).
-Use of the 34/37 on sentry boats (gunboats). Encyclopaedia Humana Hungarica Volume 09. https://mek.oszk.hu/01900/01906/html/index7.html
  • Military Technology, year XLVIII, number 4
-Focused on a further development, but has information on the 1934.M. Article title: "Faster than Lightning: The 1939M 8mm High Rate of Fire Machine Gun". Hungarian military technology journal. ISSN 0230-6891. http://real-j.mtak.hu/11407/4/HT_2014-4_teljes_red.pdf
  • From the Military Technical Institute of the Royal Hungarian Army to the HM Technology Office 1920 – 2005
-Book on Hungarian arms technology, with a section on the Gebauer-féle motorhajtású géppuskák, which includes the 34.M. Hosted by The Digital Content Development and Services Department and the staff of the Web Archiving Department of the Hungarian Electronic Library. ISBN 9789632196664. https://mek.oszk.hu/12900/12993/pdf/12993_1.pdf Tengu99 ( talk) 16:26, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply
What do covers, has information on and includes mean in practical terms of depth of coverage? A few sentences? Multiple pages? Looking at the last source, for example, I believe the section you are referring to has a single page of prose (followed by two pages of images), of which less than a single sentence appears to be about the article's topic specifically. Ljleppan ( talk) 18:15, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply
There's just going to be snippets of info here and there about this weapon, so it probably can't stand on it's own. Go ahead and delete it, I'll add the info to the other article. Tengu99 ( talk) 18:25, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: User:Tengu99 after creating this article and working on improving it during this discussion, are you now supporting its deletion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Hello. Yes, as the research I did actually backs up Chris Troutman and Ljleppan's points about coverage and sources. There's some coverage, but it's a line here, a few lines there, and so on. Thus it works out better to just move that info into the article about the inventor rather than try to make individual articles about the individual firearms themselves. Thank you, Liz.
I do wish to thank Chris Troutman and Ljleppan. This has been a learning experience. Tengu99 ( talk) 12:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 04:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Eddie Alderson

Eddie Alderson (  | talk | history | 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:NACTOR… one notable role on One Life to Live, and that was it. Bgsu98 ( talk) 04:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep WP:N doesn't expire just because the subject decided to depart acting when they became of age. Several award nominations and two roles in major mainstream films clinch it. Nate • ( chatter) 22:28, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Opinion is divided between redirect and keep, and I can't assign either side's arguments more weight. Sandstein 12:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Akash Ambani

AfDs for this article:
Akash Ambani (  | talk | history | 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 WP:GNG because there is a clear lack of coverage about this subject that would be rid of his father or family per WP:NOTINHERITED.

The subject still fails WP:BUSINESSPERSONOUTCOME because he is a chairman of Reliance JIO now but it is not in Fortune 500 companies. Srijanx22 ( talk) 03:27, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. Shellwood ( talk) 08:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep passes WP:GNG the subject has received coverage particularly after he became the chairman of Reliance JIO India's largest telecom company and one of the most important corporate positions in India.It is the third largest mobile network operator in the world.Note the coverage listed below about the subject is due to the fact he is the Chairman of Reliance JIO not because of his being Mukesh Ambani's son and hence WP:NOTINHERITED does not apply here.Further How one becomes Chairman or President or director is not a concern as far notability is concerned Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 12:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. reply

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]

References

  1. ^ "Akash Ambani: Here's all you need to know about Reliance Jio's new chairman". The Economic Times. 30 June 2022. Retrieved 3 July 2022.
  2. ^ "Who is Akash Ambani? Know all about the new chairman of Reliance Jio and son of billionaire Mukesh Ambani". Free Press Journal. 28 July 2022. Retrieved 13 July 2022.
  3. ^ "Who Is Akash Ambani? 5 Facts About Reliance Jio's New Chairman". NDTV. 28 June 2022. Retrieved 15 July 2022.
  4. ^ "Position of power: Akash Ambani moves from open office to Jio corner room". Business Standard. Retrieved 19 July 2022.
  5. ^ "Everything you want to know about Akash Ambani, the new chairman of Reliance Jio Infocomm". GQ. Retrieved 19 July 2022.
  6. ^ "Akash Ambani, chairman, Reliance Jio: Learning the ropes from the best teacher in town". Financial Times. Retrieved 19 July 2022.
  7. ^ "Reliance empire succession: what to know about Akash Ambani, from his support of Mumbai Indians, Ivy League education to love of luxury cars". South China Morning Post. Retrieved 19 July 2022.
  8. ^ "Inheritors of Reliance Empire:Know Everything about Akash and Isha Ambani". Outlook. Retrieved 19 July 2022.
  9. ^ "Akash Ambani: Meet the new Chairman of Reliance Jio". Hindu Businessline. Retrieved 19 July 2022.
  10. ^ "Akash Ambani Appointed as Reliance's Chairman, All you Need to Know About Him". India Today. Retrieved 19 July 2022.
It could pass GNG only if the subject received coverage other than being the son of a rich person or serving in his company because with these aspects, the subject is directly inheriting notability from the actual notable subject. Your sources, mainly read like paid news showing poor re-writing skills and with similar headlines like "Know About Akash Ambani". Rest of your argument is also meaningless and does not serve as a rebuttal to nomination. What do you even meant from "largest telecom company"? Do you mean we should be also having article on chairman of the "largest mango seller" even if the subject lacks coverage outside as the son of a rich person? Why you are ignoring the requirement of WP:BUSINESSPERSONOUTCOME? >>>  Extorc. talk 11:28, 24 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Mukesh Ambani: Agree with the nominator, all the coverage is due to his father's business. Lack of individual achievement or major work. Whatever little info is there about him can be covered in Mukesh Ambani#Family. Venkat TL ( talk) 15:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Coverage is because he is the chairman of Reliance JIO India's largest telecom company which is a notable achievement .I have listed 10 articles and do more about the subject which clearly makes him pass WP:GNG.Note coverage is above due to the fact he is the Chairman of JIO not because he is Mukesh Ambani's son Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 16:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    Clearly we disagree but in my opinion, being appointed the head of a company by father who owns the group of companies is not an achievement. Articles above are tabloid type and covered because he is the son of Ambani. Please wait until some individual achievement. Can be recreated later. Venkat TL ( talk) 16:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and redirect - From the sources mentioned above I only see that there is a richest person ( Mukesh Ambani) of India (1.3 billion population) who is building up a career for his son (the subject of AfD) by appointing him as chairman of a company ( Jio) he had founded. This violates WP:INHERITED and the subject is not meeting GNG. Orientls ( talk) 17:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    WP:INHERITED is not about literal inheritance, such as we see here. Phil Bridger ( talk) 18:27, 21 July 2022 (UTC) reply
Read again, I specifically noted "From the sources mentioned above" that Akash Ambani has zero independent reliable sources talking about him without significantly talking about his father and father's business. Orientls ( talk) 08:17, 24 July 2022 (UTC) reply
During the previous AFD he was not Chairman of Jio with 340 million subscribers now he is. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 23:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC) reply
Still does not meet WP:BUSINESSPERSONOUTCOME, so the argument is still the same. Just moving one step ahead in life isn't enough. >>>  Extorc. talk 13:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect again. The coverage happened because of his father and there are no sources that provide him coverage for something of his own. Shashank5988 ( talk) 10:54, 21 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep He holds chairmanship of an organization with largest subscriber base in India, WP:NOTINHERITED not applicable here. Shankar2001 ( talk) 14:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply
I would like to know what made this account !vote here after inactivity of over 3 months and repeating same argument by the creator (Pharaoh of the Wizards) which already failed in the earlier AfD. >>>  Extorc. talk 11:28, 24 July 2022 (UTC) reply
If you believe something was inappropriate, this is not the forum to make the claim. Buffs ( talk) 15:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • I agree with Delete and redirecting to father's page. KSAWikipedian ( talk) 16:34, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and redirect to Mukesh Ambani. The sources have clearly provided coverage because of his father's notability and there is no coverage about him that would be rid from that of his father. desmay ( talk) 22:15, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply

*Keep Chairmanship of Reliance Jio world’s largest telecom operator makes Akash Ambani notable.Sources listed by Pharaoh shows it passes WP:GNG. WP:NOTINHERITED does not apply is not about literal inheritance . 93.189.6.34 ( talk) 00:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC) Blocked proxy IP reply

I would like to know what made this IP !vote here by throwing a strawman after inactivity of over 18 months and using not only same argument as the creator of the article (Pharaoh of the Wizards) but also using same writing skills as Pharaoh of the Wizards. >>>  Extorc. talk 11:28, 24 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The IP editor has voted in 3 unreleated AFDs 1 , 2 Not just this one they are allowed to vote. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 23:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC) reply
Now why you are throwing strawman? I never said that the IP hasn't voted in any other AfD but came back after an inactivity of over 18 months. >>>  Extorc. talk 13:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply
If you are alleging misdeeds, this is not the forum. IP addresses change all the time. Buffs ( talk) 15:33, 4 August 2022 (UTC) reply
Static web proxy. I have reported it on noticeboard. CharlesWain ( talk) 05:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is a basic disagreement here between editors who disregard all coverage as violating WP:NOTINHERITED and those who believe it is legitimate and provides coverage of this individual that passes WP:GNG. Please judge the sourcing based on its qualitiy and whether it is in-depth and not make assumptions on whether or not it paid coverage unless there is evidence of paid editing. Maybe another week will help bring this discussion to some consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - I'm a tad confused by this nomination and the arguments made for deletion. I totally get that notability is not inherited. IE: The child of a famous actor does not meet notability standards merely due to the notability of its parent. However, I do not think sources that are largely about the parent, but also have coverage of the child, contravene NOTINHERITED. Sure, BUSINESSOUTCOME is not met. That is not really relevant to this discussion as an argument for deletion. It simply notes that notability is usually found to exist when one is head of a F500 or FTSE100 company. If the subject had no coverage, then perhaps this would be relevant, but he does. There is an article in GQ. The coverage in this Forbes piece is not negated merely because the headline has Mukesh Ambani in it. There is still coverage within this article that is more than trivial of Akash. There is an article dedicated to Akash Ambani in the Economic Times of India here. There are countless other hits of significant coverage from independent, secondary, reliable sources. Hence he clearly meets WP:GNG. I'm not seeing any evidence of paid editing either. I do a lot of work in the "articles with a promotional tone" category, and puff pieces are typically a lot longer than this with buckets of fluff. The article needs expansion, and from the sources located there is enough to write at least a start class article about his early life, education, involvement with family affairs etc. Much of this coverage only came up a month ago - and so I have no doubt as he continues to manage and takeover family affairs the coverage will grow and so too will the article. MaxnaCarta ( talk) 06:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
GQ introduces the subject as "Akash Ambani is the eldest son of Mukesh and Nita Ambani".
This introduces the subject as "but Indian billionaire Mukesh Ambani has commenced the handover at age 65..... His eldest son Akash Ambani, 30, took over as chairman".
Here, the source introduces the subject as "Mukesh Ambani, announced his resignation from Reliance Jio’s Board on 28th June 2022. Following his resignation, Mukesh passed on the baton of his thriving telecom business to his son Akash Ambani."
And you wonder how WP:NOTINHERITED is violated. It is exactly violated.
Good you admit that WP:BUSINESSOUTCOME is not met, but "GNG" is being wrongly cited by you and some others. With the definition of "GNG" that has been provided here, we will need an article about Estere and Stella (kids of Madonna) who received million times more coverage than Akash Ambani. Orientls ( talk) 08:49, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
That is not the spirit of NOTINHERITED. The guideline is designed to ensure that non-notable people do not have their own article merely because they’re associated with a notable subject. A person who dates Tom Cruise is not suddenly notable merely due to their association with him. However if there is significant coverage the notability is met. I am not incorrectly citing anything. The GQ article is not invalidated as a source merely because his father is in the first paragraph. Three more go on to discuss the subject. The subject meets the general notability guideline which stipulates assumed notability where there is significant coverage in multiple appropriate sources. I’ve produced three sources above. The guideline is hence met and my submission stands. BUSINESSOUTCOME is not even a notability guideline. It’s a common AFD result. MaxnaCarta ( talk) 12:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
If it had been someone unrelated who had been referred to in those articles in the same way rather than the former chairman's son would you have invoked WP:NOTINHERITED? As far as that guideline goes "inheritance" in the Wikipedia sense would be just the same. The fact that this article is about someone's son is irrelevant. Phil Bridger ( talk) 17:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Mukesh Ambani: as many have stated, all the coverage that exists about this topic is directly because of their relation to Mukesh Ambani, and it should therefore be included at that page. –– FormalDude talk 00:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    I'm not denying that the guy is notable because of his father, and that is why the coverage is there.
    From WP:NOTINHERITED: "The fact of having a famous relative is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article. Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG". So, if the only claim to notability was that Akash worked with his famous father, but no coverage existed on Akash that could be used to write a verifiable article, then he is not notable merely because of his familial relationship to someone notable. However, policy does not, anywhere, state that merely because a subject has become notable due to a notable parent, that subject is hence unable to meet WP:GNG. If the coverage was merely trivial, a passing mention that the father had a son, I would not be arguing for keep. But there is substantial and significant coverage discussing the article subject at length. He therefore passes GNG. MaxnaCarta ( talk) 00:21, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply
    WP:PAGEDECIDE states that even notable topics may not be best presented in a standalone article, and I believe that is the case here, being that all the sources are in the context of his relationship to Ambani. –– FormalDude talk 01:28, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Mukesh Ambani per arguments above. Azuredivay ( talk) 12:39, 31 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep While the articles mention the fact that he is his father's son, that does not invalidate the articles. He's the CEO of a major telecom in India. How he got there is irrelevant and such an argument falls on deaf ears given the coverage and notability. Given his lineage, it's likely that every article will mention it. Buffs ( talk) 15:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • The coverage mainly relies on the fact he is son of Mukesh Ambani and that totally invalidates the subject's notability per WP:NOTINHERITED. He is not a "CEO" and there is no article on Mukesh Ambani that mentions Dhirubhai Ambani. Your argument is totally misleading. CharlesWain ( talk) 05:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    I've provided a fairly indepth explanation of why the coverage does not fall under WP:NOTINHERITED. "The guideline is designed to ensure that non-notable people do not have their own article merely because they’re associated with a notable subject. A person who dates Tom Cruise is not suddenly notable merely due to their association with him. However if there is significant coverage the notability is met. I am not incorrectly citing anything. The GQ article is not invalidated as a source merely because his father is in the first paragraph. Three more go on to discuss the subject. The subject meets the general notability guideline which stipulates assumed notability where there is significant coverage in multiple appropriate sources. I’ve produced three sources above. MaxnaCarta ( talk) 08:10, 5 August 2022 (UTC) reply
They still don't justify stand alone article. I support redirecting as it would still allow creation in future if necessary. CharlesWain ( talk) 10:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Mukesh Ambani Even if the opposing argument is accepted then still there is nothing to note about him other than him being a chairman of Reliance JIO. I agree that per WP:NOPAGE, he is still far from having his own page. ArvindPalaskar ( talk) 06:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep MaxnaCarta has the strongest arguments here by far. This subject is clearly notable based on the way he is treated by the Indian media. For example, the Economic Times covering his wedding in detail? The South China Morning Post doing an in-depth profile on him? The Times of India, India's largest circulation English language newspaper, with over 13 million readers, printing an article about how Akash was featured on Forbes' 40 under 40? This is clearly a major national celebrity, and the fact that it is probably almost exclusively due to his father's wealth does nothing to change that. Chagropango ( talk) 11:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Rocco Basile

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

promotional and non-notable Ref one is a trivial mention, The other refs refer to a trivial local promotional honor. DGG ( talk ) 00:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - notability exists. Agree, with tone being promotional which should be fixed. He is the recipient of an award-cum-resolution from the NY Senate per this. Meets WP:ANYBIO. 174.93.92.251 ( talk) 03:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and New York. Shellwood ( talk) 08:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I do not think the award from the legislature is enough to show notability, and the sourcing does not provide the coverage at a level we need to justify an article. Just because you get recognition from a legislative body does not mean you are notable. I have a great uncle who was an academic administrator, who had a school named after him, and who Nevada designated a day in his honor, but I am sure he is not notable. Government honors that are not actually highly restrictive are not enough to show notability, and I do not think the honor mentioned above is enough to show notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:04, 5 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep meets WP:ANYBIO. His award from the NY Senate seems very selective and isn't awarded graciously as suggested above, [9]. He is also an actor which furthers his notability above the line and make him pass WP:GNG, [10]. 08:56, 19 July 2022 (UTC) 65.92.160.108 ( talk)
  • Keep per above Andrevan @ 00:29, 24 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I hate to relist a 3rd time but I'd like to see a few more thoughtful opinions on this one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete "Man of the year" isn't notable for our purposes, he gives money to charity. As do many others in his position. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. No substantial coverage in sources. The state award is not a prominent one and looks like a thing politicians do to reward campaign donors or friends. Sandstein 12:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Andrevan (seems like they are better versed with NY topics). Notable as an architect, in addition to his notability as an actor and philanthropist. Additional coverage found ( [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]). 159.196.31.83 ( talk) 13:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Lacks in-depth coverage to meet WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:49, 5 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Found a relevant case study. 199.115.163.26 ( talk) 15:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR applies. ✗ plicit 11:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Bowithick Quarry

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

Quarries are not inherently notable. Lack of in-depth coverage in independent RS to meet GNG. MB 02:47, 12 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply

NemesisAT ( talk) 10:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 03:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Hillbrush

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

Does not meet GNG/NCORP. Small private company, lack of in-depth converage in independent sources. Citations are all from the company website, press releases, or minor mentions about a few of their products. MB 02:30, 12 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. There are a couple sources, but only a couple, and I fear that there's not enough written about this company to make an article that's neither permanently a stub nor promotional of the company. If we were to write an article I think we'd be relying almost solely on the made in britain book. FalconK ( talk) 22:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Shamaira Stekkinger

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 03:29, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:36, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Pink Sweat

Pink Sweat (  | talk | history | 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 short film that does not appear to pass the WP:GNG. The only real claim to notability in the article itself is winning a non-notable award. There are no real reliable sources included in the article, and I could find no coverage at all upon searches. To be fair, most searches assume you are trying to find info on Pink Sweat$, but even trying to refine the search only brings up the briefest of mentions. Rorshacma ( talk) 03:29, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete per nomination. QuietHere ( talk) 16:31, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete - If we consider it a short film, then it doesn't meet WP:NFILM. The award does not seem major. Zeddedm ( talk) 20:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:35, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Zolique Samuel

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 03:26, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:34, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Penguin Computing

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

Seems to mostly consist of an advertisement. Urban Versis 32KB ⚡ ( talk / contribs) 03:25, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Urban Versis 32KB ⚡ ( talk / contribs) 03:25, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and California. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 22:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 22:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - The article's subject fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Of the 11 sources in the article, there are none that aren't outright press releases/wires. At first I thought maybe this PCWorld article might be a reliable source, but upon reading it, it's very clearly sourcing itself from a press release. I did check beyond the sources in the article to see if there was available sourcing elsewhere, and there are plenty of press releases/wires and wordpress blog discussions on Google search results, but nothing that would support notability. Likewise with Google Books, all that came up were lots of ads they ran in magazines like PCMagazine. There are even Google Scholar results, but those are primary/non-independent sources, again nothing that shows notability for the subject. I did find one mention in Newspapers.com that wasn't an ad, but it lacked any significant coverage and was merely an advice column from 1999 saying the following: "Another good place to turn if you're looking to buy a PC with Linux already installed in Penguin Computing. They offer a full range of systems plus lots of tech support when you need it." A trivial mention in an opinion piece in a newspaper from 1999 is the best I could find. Trivial mentions don't provide significant coverage per WP:GNG, and if that's the best I was able to find I don't think this article's subject meets any of Wikipedia's notability requirements. - Aoidh ( talk) 03:58, 29 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

2022 Langley shootings

The result was keep. WP:SNOW. ( non-admin closure) WWGB ( talk) 05:55, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply


2022 Langley shootings (  | talk | history | 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 would like it nominated on the grounds of wp:NOTNEWS. Coverage of the topic is *exclusively* from news sources covering the incident. There is no evidence that this event will be an enduringly notable event, ... considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style. I would support this article being draftified until such time as evidence emerges that this incident is enduringly notable (for instance, if it continues to recieve coverage and attention from sources months later, or is later shown to be integral to understanding some kind of legal reform, etc). 128.189.112.147 ( talk) 01:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

In particular, WP:EVENTCRIT, suggests the following guidelines:
  • An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable. - no evidence of this at this time
  • An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable. - not the case as all the sources used, along with sources found, are reformulating the same reuters/CBC piece.
  • Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle - unclear right now as it literally happened today
  • Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable. Wide-ranging reporting tends to show significance, but sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted. - this is indeed true, but again, all the sources are regurtitating the same reuters/CBC source, thus should be counted as less valuable, as sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted. CoreyToldMeToDoThis ( talk) 03:16, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Neutral Comment — WP:RAPID is at play here with the article being nominated for AfD hours after creation & at the time of nomination, still contained a {{Current event}} template. I recommend no editors make any !votes (Keep, Delete, Merge, Redirects, or Draftify) for at least 24 hours. That will ensure the article’s topic would have the time to show any potential for notability. Any editors who gave an !vote prior to this message (or within 4-5 hours after this message) will receive a ping after 24 hours for a chance to reassess the article. Prior !votes may or may not change, but that will give a current event article any chance to show potential for lasting notability. Elijahandskip ( talk) 03:24, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
As stated/promised, here are the editors who voted prior or within 4 hours of the WP:RAPID message. You may or may not change your !vote, but any confirmations/changes will ensure they were not involved with any "quick" decisions, aka, WP:RAPID. @ CoreyToldMeToDoThis: CT55555, and Silent-Rains. Elijahandskip ( talk) 04:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
WP:RAPID is about not quickly deleting an article and it therefore does not apply to my keep vote. I don't think editors should be obliged to restate their votes, but for the avoidance of doubt, I know that I may update my vote and I have chosen not to. CT55555 ( talk) 10:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Leaning keep I think this nomination is too hasty. My WP:BEFORE searches informed me that this is the currently most popular news item in the CBC. I see already it attracting international news. It seems likely to attract significant, sustained coverage, it seems likely to have lasting effect. That is somewhere between informed analysis and speculation, which is why we should wait and not make a hasty delete decision. CT55555 ( talk) 03:31, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This article does not break the wp:NOTNEWS policy in my opinion.
    • Rule one of wp:NOTNEWS is "No original reporting." this wiki page does not break that rule. All information on the wiki page is from verifiable sources.
    • Rule 2 of wp:NOTNEWS is "Don't write Wikipedia articles in the style of a newspaper [essentially]." This wikipage doesn't break that rule either.
    • The 3rd rule of wp:NOTNEWS is "Who's Who" which states, "Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event." This wiki page follows that rule. It is about the event (the shootings,) not a biography of the perp.
    • The final rule of wp:NOTNEWS is "No Celebrity gossip and diary." This wikipedia page is about a spree killing, not celebrity gossip. This wiki article does not break the wp:NOTNEWS policy in my opinion. Silent-Rains ( talk) 04:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Fairly obvious Keep A relatively rare event of this type in Canada, which will receive future coverage. We have large numbers of such articles, unfortunately, mostly relating to the US naturally. Johnbod ( talk) 13:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep These such events are pretty rare in Canada, and when they happen, it usually occurs on Ontario. The fact that the nominator is complaining only about newspapers covering the shootings is rather unusual because it's barely been a day since the attacks. Dunutubble ( talk) ( Contributions) 14:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
Strong keep MrMemer223 ( talk) 16:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
You don't have to, but it will be more persuasive to who ever closes this if you way why you !voted that way. CT55555 ( talk) 16:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat ( talk) 23:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Ryker Evans

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

Ineligible for a PROD deletion as that was done already, but as I noted when I set that up: Fails WP:NHOCKEY; only Second All-Star Team in WHL, no professional experience. Kaiser matias ( talk) 01:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

@ GoodDay: How not? Have you even looked at the above sources? BeanieFan11 ( talk) 01:41, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
I'll consider, reconsidering it. GoodDay ( talk) 01:49, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify. Liz Read! Talk! 02:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Hypnotic (upcoming film)

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

Hypnotic (upcoming film)

Unreleased film that has been "upcoming" since this article was written in 2019 by a disruptive now-blocked user, and does not satisfy general notability or film notability. There is nothing in this article that either implies significant coverage or indicates a release date. The name-drops of a well-known director and a better-known star do not inherit notability. The mention of the start and end of principal photography is also a name-drop, because of the myth that films are notable after principal photography. What the guideline really says is that films are not notable before principal photography, and are only notable after principal photography and before release if production itself passes general notability. The article says nothing about production except that it happened, and the references do not provide independent or secondary coverage. The references are mostly announcements of signings and other advance publicity.

Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 deadline.com Advance publicity, announcing lead actor No Yes Yes No
2 collider.com Advance publicity before start of filming No Yes Yes No
3 hollywoodreporter.com Advance publicity, announcing a team addition No Yes Yes No
4 deadline.com Announcement about producers of film No Yes Yes No
5 variety.com Announcement of star as lead actor No Yes Yes No
6 deadline.com Announcement of signing of female lead No Yes Yes No
7 deadline.com Announcement of child star No Yes Yes No
8 deadline.com Announcement of two supporting actors No Yes Yes No
9 deadline.com Announcement of another supporting actor No Yes Yes No
10 deadline.com About layoffs at production studio, passing mention that film is still in production No No Yes No

This article belongs in draft space, and can be reviewed for article space if and when the film is released. (At this point it may be in post-production limbo.) I am not unilaterally draftifying it because it has been in article space for three years (where it was put by a noiw-blocked disruptive editor), and because it is adequately sourced although the sources are crud. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:03, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It is pretty clear there is a consensus to keep and that isn't likely to change, so there is no use in wasting any more editor time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:53, 30 July 2022 (UTC) reply

SleazyWorld Go

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

Insufficient significant coverage by reliable sources, fails WP:GNG Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply

– North America 1000 02:55, 19 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Other than Billboard, I don't see them passing WP:RS. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • @ Dennis Brown: XXL is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources under the section for "Generally reliable sources". Descriptions there are rather contradictory, though. Above in the section it states, "These sources are generally considered reliable for use in music-related articles on Wikipedia", but heading the table it states that the criteria applies to album articles: "Generally reliable sources for album-related information". North America 1000 08:51, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply
Stereogum doesn't pass the sniff test. XXLmag, meh, I wouldn't have picked it to be. Billboard is fine. So it's on the cusp of being "multiple reliable sources". I'm not convinced. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:25, 25 July 2022 (UTC) reply
Stereogum isn't listed on the album project's RS list, but probably should be; The Week has used it alongside The New York Times in its album roundup columns, for example. And Tom Breihan may be considered a subject matter expert at this point. Caro7200 ( talk) 13:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep brief mention covering new music in the New York Times, giving their opinion on him [17] and in Fader [18]. I think with the Billboard and just about all the sources, he's at notability, just by a hair. He's given two interviews to HipHop Canada already [19] and [20], not useful for notability, but he's getting traction outside the USA, so that adds a bit to it. Oaktree b ( talk) 03:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep: Stereogum is meh, but works for WP:GNG. However, XXL is a highly regarded hip-hop publication, with a magazine circulated on a consistent basis. Definitely counts for notability. — VersaceSpace 🌃 15:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_July_26&oldid=1102330520"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE