WIKIPEDIA:ARTICLES FOR DELETION LOG 2022 OCTOBER 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< October 28	October 30 >

Guide to deletion

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 Draftify. There is consensus that this is a viable topic, but that the article is currently very poor. Opinions are quite evenly divided between keeping and draftifying; I'm going with the latter given the marginally higher support. There is no consensus for requiring recreation via AfC. Vanamonde ( Talk) 17:03, 6 November 2022 (UTC) reply

List of permaculture projects

AfDs for this article:

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

This article does not meet our criteria for list notability ( WP:NLIST and especially WP:CSC). Certainly not all permaculture projects are notable, so it cannot meet Criteria #1. However, some permaculture projects are notable, so it cannot meet Criteria #2. It certainly cannot meet WP:CSC Criteria 3, since there are thousands of permaculture projects worldwide. Any truly notable permaculture projects can be covered adequately at permaculture and their own individual pages.

It was previously nominated for deletion in 2014, and despite clean-up efforts around that time, has remained in a shoddy state because of its fundamental issues. This page regularly attracts a lot of poorly sourced and unsourced additions, constantly becoming an indiscriminate list ( WP:LSC), leading to WP:TNT being valid as well. —Ganesha811 ( talk) 19:02, 8 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Environment. —Ganesha811 ( talk) 19:02, 8 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC) reply

The problem is that if it's deleted, these examples will end up stinking out permaculture again. I have no problem with going through it and terminating entries without decent secondary sourcing with extreme prejudice: in the worst case that means there will be a moderately contained list of them here and maybe a very short highlight of them in the main article. Otherwise you're going to have an even bigger struggle keeping cruft out of there. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 23:17, 8 October 2022 (UTC) reply

If this should be deleted from wikipedia, then i nominate that this be moved to v:Permaculture/List of permaculture projects - this list has learning value IMO. limitless peace. Michael Ten ( talk) 01:20, 10 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:TNT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I do think it would be possible to create a List of permaculture projects that meets WP:NLIST; particularly if we were to limit it to permaculture projects that were independently notable, and which had their own articles. However, given that eight years has passed and the issues of indiscriminate information within this article still remain, I think its best to delete it with no prejudice against recreating it if an editor is willing to tackle it properly. 4meter4 ( talk) 16:26, 15 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's been some talk of pruning this article to make it usable but no work has been done thus far. However, it is not eligible for Soft Deletion (that having been the previous AFD outcome) so I'm relisting this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 22:56, 15 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 22:50, 22 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep with no prejudice to immediate renomination if User:Thumperward does not do what he says he is going to do. Spinning Spark 12:07, 23 October 2022 (UTC) reply

I don't think it's fair to anyone to make this article's status contingent on one particular user feeling obligated to work on it, with no clear timeline for improvement. Plus it feels very odd that I would then have to hang around to decide if their work is sufficient or not and decide on renomination; that shouldn't be hanging over their heads if they do want to work on the article. —Ganesha811 ( talk) 12:34, 23 October 2022 (UTC) reply

This is a keep and cleanup vote. That is a perfectly valid position. It would be even more "hanging" if we did not already have someone who had indicated they were going to do the work. The "no prejudice to immediate renomination" wording is because speedy renominations are generally speedy closed as too soon per WP:RENOM. If I change to a straight keep (the usual position for cleanup cases per WP:NOTCLEANUP), and it passes, then you would be even more stuffed to get it deleted. Spinning Spark 17:22, 23 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep and cleanup is certainly a perfectly valid vote, I just thought the phrasing you used had odd implications/expectations for both Thumperward and myself. In any case, I appreciate your clarification, which makes sense. —Ganesha811 ( talk) 17:35, 23 October 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Spinningspark This would be an example where draftify could be a useful alternative. 4meter4 ( talk) 18:02, 23 October 2022 (UTC) reply

That's your opinion, not mine. If the page is going to be improved, that can be done just as well in mainspace. If nothing is going to happen, you will just be sending it to draft to die. Spinning Spark 08:31, 30 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Draftify Not actually a list article currently, but it is plausible that an overhaul could result in WP:NLIST being met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:56, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It looks like the options proposed are Keep, with a heavy pruning (done by whom?), outright deletion or moving it to Wikiversity (which I don't know how to do). Any final thoughts on this?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 23:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Liz:. Transwikiing requires the importer right at the target project. There is a page at Wikiversity, V:Wikiversity:Import, where importing can be requested from someone with suitable rights. I don't think this is an issue with Wikiversity, but note that not all projects are cool with importing; some don't even have the feature turned on. Spinning Spark 08:28, 30 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Draftify, do not keep Not a list, horrible quality. Lurking shadow ( talk) 14:55, 4 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep contingent on Thumperward's plans, or draftify (but don't require AfC) until the pruning/sourcing can be done. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:40, 4 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep and clean up, or draftify, per above discussion. It's a great concept, but a bit messy. I prefer SMART, emphasis on the Time-bound, goals. Bearian ( talk) 16:25, 5 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Comment I won't relist a discussion a 4th time but I just want to ping Thumperward in case they wanted to respond to these comments. Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 22:32, 5 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 22:28, 5 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Camilla Henemark

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

Fails WP:ENTERTAINER because, while she has one single that peaked at 31 on the Swedish charts, none of her albums or other singles seems to have charted at all. She has a few acting credits, but these seem to be mostly just guest appearances and nothing notable. There is no evidence she is considered important or influential in any field. Also, only four sources are cited and two of them aren't about her and only mention her.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Baronet13 ( talk • contribs)

Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. There is coverage of her for more than her work as a solo musician. It's a bit misleading to say she has only 1 charting single. She had only one charting single as a solo artist, but had many charting songs and two charting albums as the lead vocalist for Army of Lovers from 1987 through 1992. Additionally, her affair with the King of Sweeden has been the subject of multiple publications, including a book and television and film dramatizations of the affair and scholarly works such as André Haller, Hendrik Michael, Lucas Seeber (ed.). Scandology 3: Scandals in New Media. Springer International Publishing. ISBN 9783030850135See chapters 3.5 Audience Participation and Scandalized Women and 3.6 Gender Roles and Royal Sex Scandals{{ cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list ( link) CS1 maint: postscript ( link). There's lots of sources available in google books and google scholar in both English and Sweedish. Clearly WP:BEFORE was not followed. 4meter4 ( talk) 00:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, Fashion, and Sweden. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. Per WP:GNG. Has had a charting song as well. BabbaQ ( talk) 10:39, 30 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Speedy keep. Easily passes WP:SIGCOV in Swedish sources. Sjö ( talk) 12:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep. As pointed out above, she easily passes WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. The focus on her career as a solo artist is a red herring, as her main importance as a musician has been as part of Army of Lovers, and additionally she has spent an unfortunate amount of time in the public eye due to her affair with the king of Sweden. / Julle ( talk) 06:49, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Alleged affair. WP:BLP applies. Sjö ( talk) 08:11, 4 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Yeah, sorry. She has confirmed it repeatedly herself, and there's better sourcing for this than what's currently in the article, but maybe the other part in the alledged relationship hasn't, merely not denied it. Mea culpa. / Julle ( talk) 12:43, 4 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Speedy keep notable as demonstrated above. The article could use some work, but deletion is not cleanup. Draken Bowser ( talk) 07:51, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep Passes WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV and is definitely notable. JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs) 00:28, 5 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. And redirect Christina Aguilera: The Xperience to The Xperience. Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 22:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC) reply

The Xperience

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

Another article by the name Christina Aguilera: The Xperience already exists about the exact same residency. What's the point for this? Sricsi ( talk) 21:29, 15 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sricsi ( talk) 21:29, 15 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Comment. That is... A seemingly complex history of moves and apparently some copy-and-paste moves from The Xperience to Christina Aguilera: The Xperience, if my non-expert reading is correct, so just deleting this probably isn't the best solution. Skynxnex ( talk) 22:17, 15 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:18, 15 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep. This is the long-standing article on the topic, which has all the history. Christina Aguilera: The Xperience should be redirected to this one. If there's any additional content in the other article that's worth keeping, it can be copied to this one with attribution per WP:COPYWITHIN. If there's any dispute about the best title for the article, someone can take it to WP:RM. Toohool ( talk) 01:56, 16 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 22:40, 22 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete There seems to be no point of keeping this, as it is a second article of the same residency. Kirtap92 ( talk) 16:40, 26 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep one, redirect the other The topic appears to be notable, this is an obvious case of WP:FORK. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:54, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as it isn't clear about what page is getting redirected where. Do others go along with User:Toohool's suggestion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 23:35, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment All other things equal, I'd prefer the longer title: that's the official name of it, it's not clear that the short version rises to WP:COMMONNAME status, and I'm honestly kind of surprised nobody else has named anything notable "The Xperience". If we'd like to keep the other one's history, both history-merges and moves exist. 3mi1y ( talk) 08:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW close due to considerable, unanimous opposition to deletion and strength of arguments presented. —Ganesha811 ( talk) 18:13, 30 October 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure) —Ganesha811 ( talk) 18:13, 30 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Paraguayan Football Association

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

Organisation doesn't seem to meet WP:NORG. There is a lack of in-depth coverage about association (as opposed to the leagues, the national team or Football in Paraguay in general) in independent sources. Most of the third-party sources are WP:ROUTINE coverage of the association's 100 year anniversary. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:34, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ResonantDistortion ( talk) 04:48, 30 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paraguay-related deletion discussions. ResonantDistortion ( talk) 04:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ResonantDistortion ( talk) 05:19, 30 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep National well known football organisation that is over a 100 years old - meets WP:NGO - sufficiently notable to be organising a bid for one of the biggest sporting competitions in the world. Has WP:NEXIST really been thoroughly discounted? (I have added a couple of refs to the article including the world cup bid) ResonantDistortion ( talk) 14:05, 30 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep as it is a national governing body that meets WP:NGO with enough coverage over 100+ years to meet WP:GNG, also in other languages. This nomination appears to be part of an ongoing edit war, which does not belong at AfD. Strongly suggest taking this dispute elsewhere. Cielquiparle ( talk) 14:10, 30 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep Football is the most popular sport in Paraguay and its governing body is a historic organization in the country. It is a member of FIFA and CONMEBOL and all the football associations of South America have their article, why the Paraguayan Football Association should be deleted? It doesn't have any sense.-- Lizkin ( talk) 15:29, 30 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep - the national governing body of the biggest sport in Paraguay? Of course it's notable. Ridiculous nomination. Giant Snowman 15:43, 30 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep - I can see no grounds for deleting this. Deb ( talk) 16:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep Easily meets notability guidelines. Thriley ( talk) 17:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 20:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Angela Dawson (Rollergirl)

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as an unelected candidate for political office at the municipal level. As always, non-winning election candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates -- the notability test for politicians is holding a notable political office, not just running for one, and candidates normally get articles only if they can demonstrate that they already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them an article anyway.
The primary attempt at prior notability here, however, is that she once filed a human rights complaint against the city police, which is referenced to a single source rather than the significant volume of WP:GNG-worthy media coverage it would take to make somebody encyclopedically notable on that basis, so it doesn't constitute a notability claim that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance -- and that, further, is the only reliably-sourced thing here at all, since even her unsuccessful election campaigns are sourced to blogs and YouTube videos rather than reliable source media coverage.
(Full disclosure, I've also had to strip an extremely negative claim from the article on the grounds that it was also improperly sourced -- it was referenced solely to a crime blogger's personal WordPress rather than any evidence of media coverage about it, and appeared to be here solely to sneak the subject's pre-transition deadname under the radar since you had to search for that, not "Angela", to find the entry. But even that isn't of any enduring encyclopedic significance, so it violates WP:PERP and doesn't secure the preexisting notability of an unelected political candidate either.)
So TLDR, nothing here is "inherently" notable at all, and the sourcing isn't cutting it in terms of GNG. Bearcat ( talk) 21:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. Bearcat ( talk) 21:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. I can't find anything notable regarding this particular Angela Dawson. Also when I look up "Rollergirl", I find a German singer and artwork, and a book when I search "Roller Girl". This is a person who has been mentioned a few times in news and other websites for nothing significant. Winning an insignificant case and running for a political office, which most people can do, does not come close to warranting an article. There's nothing meeting WP:N criteria. A note on subsequent discussion since I've seen it used as an argument on AfD pages: that there is sourcing does not mean notable by default. Saucysalsa30 ( talk) 22:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete non-notable as was never elected, and the human rights tribunal decision is neither here nor there. Person who directs traffic and tries to be a politician. The mayor of Vancouver might have been notable, the Parks board position isn't. Oaktree b ( talk) 22:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Comment If this article is kept, it should be moved to Angela Dawson (Roller Girl) as all sources that I can find use "Roller Girl" instead of "Rollergirl". Samsmachado ( talk) 02:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete While I do agree that her case against Vancouver PD might be notable, I do agreed with Bearcat's assessment that it does not have WP:SIGCOV. If it is notable, it would be significantly covered. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 02:34, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete as per nom. Doesn't satisfy WP:GNG MaskedSinger ( talk) 05:54, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Hang on User:Bearcat - I can see removing her dead name - but it's hardly just a "claim". And the coverage of that murder was very significant - such as most of page 3 of a 1991 Winnipeg Sun. This report ties the two together. The existing coverage in the article was pushing notability - but coverage as a violent murderer? Thoughts? On hand hand, I don't want to out someone - on the other hand, would we keep and document the murder, if they were straight? Nfitz ( talk) 04:13, 5 November 2022 (UTC) reply

No, we probably wouldn't keep and document the murder even so — under WP:PERP, one newspaper article in the local newspaper of the city where the murder happened would not be sufficient coverage to establish the permanent encyclopedic notability of the perpetrator. It isn't our role to maintain an article about every single crime that happens, even if a handful of local sourcing can be found to support it — our role is to maintain articles about a narrow selection of crimes that can be found to have broad international impact that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance, and not about any other crime. Jeffrey Dahmer yes; the still not publicly-named kid in my hometown who appears to have murder-suicided himself and his parents a few days ago, no.

And the definition of "claim" doesn't hinge on whether a statement is true or not — it hinges on whether the statement is properly sourced or not, which it wasn't. Bearcat ( talk) 11:38, 5 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 20:45, 5 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988

AfDs for this article:

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

Nom: This article is WP:NOTNEWS as Wikipedia is not a listing of brief reporting on or reference to, as in this example, US legislation proposed and failing to pass and become law, and more importantly with little/no further importance. The events of this bill are no more than it was proposed based on a shaky claim by a Senate Foreign Relations Committee staffer and failed to pass in Congress, and may be stepping into being WP:INDISCRIMINATE information. Notability is not established, especially with the synthesis/OR recently fixed. A related bill later that month in Sept 1988 was about or slightly less notable, being in the same context, and likewise died in Congress after passing in the House with no further significance, and rightfully no Wikipedia article exists for it. Please note that sourcing existing on a subject does not automatically comprise notability or warranting a Wiki article. Depth, effects, and other criteria are critically important. Several sentences, perhaps with a quote or two, is the typical "solid" coverage of this bill ever since. An uncommonly "comprehensive" source I added on the article goes a bit beyond this, but still only notes it as passing in the Senate (before going to the House, where it would die) and the lack of medical evidence to support the claim, along with additional commentary and tangential details. Interestingly, the source doesn't call the bill by name. Sparing several extraneous details, the extent of this bill's notability and significance is already covered on the Peter Galbraith wiki too so there is redundancy.

(Extra info) Previous AfD and observations: This article was previously put up for deletion on July 6, 2009, which in the less than 3 hours between the AfD template being placed on the article [1] and the AfD page creation [2], another editor and would-be voter in the AfD page made a significant (assuming good faith) SYNTH edit [3], followed by more edits, on the article to make the topic appear far more significant and fleshed out than reality. Likely out of the rush to save the article, ignorance on the topic, and perhaps laxer rules on OR back then, the edit added a lede, "Background", and "Later significance" sections with sources and OR that did not speak on or relate to the bill, even attempting to mistakenly tie it into the 2003 Iraq invasion. This appears to have misled the voting as a result, with several "Keep" votes referencing the just-added SYNTH notability and sourcing or were confused about notability criteria, and one justifying it on the basis of future potential for notability [4] (13 years later, and still not realized) which is not what notability is. One of the "Delete" votes called out the SYNTH explicitly [5], which may have been missed by others in deliberating. I have since fixed the SYNTH in this article, making for a visibly different article than was discussed in the first AfD. Saucysalsa30 ( talk) 20:33, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete Legislation gets proposed all the time and defeated all the time. This particular piece of legislation has had no further media coverage since it was defeated and even the ones from the time are limited. Not seeing GNG. Oaktree b ( talk) 22:44, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Military, Iraq, and United States of America. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 23:26, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete since the subject appears to have received very little coverage since it failed to pass. Perhaps some of the details in the article could be merged to Peter Galbraith, but as it is there is not really enough information to justify an article. Chagropango ( talk) 14:36, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 06:30, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Parma, Colorado

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

Surprisingly, another searching problem, between the ham on one side and the place in Idaho on the other. The placenames book cited leans toward the interpretation that it was a rail spot that never got going as a town, and that's pretty much what the topos and aerials say. Other than that, all I have is some references by the state railroad commission. Mangoe ( talk) 14:22, 15 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Colorado. Shellwood ( talk) 14:27, 15 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Seems it had a post office at one time per this source. Vsmith ( talk) 00:57, 16 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Rail spots commonly did. A post office is not, however, a town. Mangoe ( talk) 01:23, 16 October 2022 (UTC) reply

I have added a bit of detail to the article Vsmith ( talk) 01:47, 16 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 19:30, 22 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep: Another one of the ongoing debates over railroad stops that were briefly also considered rural unincorporated communities. The colorado place name book admits now it is only a railroad siding [6]. There were plans to make it a full town in 1903 [7], but plainly that didn't come to fruition.-- Milowent • ^has
spoken 12:45, 24 October 2022 (UTC) reply
- Milowent, if it is only a rail siding and not a GEOLAND-compliant populated place, why argue for keep? ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 12:41, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete - Plans for a town do not appear to have come to fruition; this was never anything more than a rail stop. – dlthewave ☎ 18:25, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 20:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete as per nomination. Places on railways are not notable by default. TH1980 ( talk) 02:33, 30 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. The article does not have much importance and useful information as a rail spot. Timothytyy ( talk) 07:53, 30 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete clearly fails WP:GNG, couldn't find a single article about it. Idunnox3 ( talk) 23:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to List of USAC Championship Car seasons. There is clear consensus that standalone pages aren't appropriate here. There is less clarity as to the targets for redirecting; consensus is against the USAC page, but opinions are divided between List of USAC Championship Car seasons and the individual Indy race pages. There is marginally more support for the former, but if future talk page discussion determines that the Indy race pages are better targets, this discussion is no bar to retargeting. Vanamonde ( Talk) 16:59, 6 November 2022 (UTC) reply

1984–85 USAC Championship Car season

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

Database entry articles that could be considered POV forks of the 1985 Indianapolis 500, 1986 Indianapolis 500, 1987 Indianapolis 500, 1988 Indianapolis 500, 1989 Indianapolis 500, 1990 Indianapolis 500, 1991 Indianapolis 500, 1992 Indianapolis 500, 1993 Indianapolis 500, 1994 Indianapolis 500, and 1995 Indianapolis 500 articles. Zero indication that the subjects covered here are independently notable from the respective Indy 500 articles or the List of USAC Championship Car seasons. HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 10:57, 8 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Management, Motorsport, and Indiana. HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 10:57, 8 October 2022 (UTC) reply

I am also nominating the following related pages because they all have the same issue:

HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 11:06, 8 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep There are an abundance of independant, reliable sources that indicate that the USAC Gold Crown Championship (particuarly 1983-1995) was its own official entity and not simply "that year's Indy 500" or a "ceremonial title" or "imaginary" championship as some editors have attempted to suggest. A selection of supporting clippings are presented here. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Those clippings, and additional similar citations can be added to the respective pages for clarity. In general, a championship season that just happened to have only one race is still a championship season in the records of the sanctioning body (United States Auto Club/USAC). Furthermore, I would reject any suggestion to merge the information into the respective Indianapolis 500 article, as it would lengthen already substantial sized articles, and would possibly create confusion as the race was technically part of two distinct points championships Doctorindy↔ Talk 02:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC) reply
- None of these sources seem to indicate independent notability from the respective Indianapolis 500 articles. Even if we were to include the contents of these sources, it would still amount to saying "the winner of the YYYY Indianapolis 500 was declared the USAC Gold Crown champion and received $XXXXXX in prize money". These articles are reporting generally on USAC prize giving ceremonies with numerous champions being honoured and rewarded, and the coverage of the Gold Crown championships themselves is usually nothing more than WP:ROUTINE noting of the prize money given. HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 02:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  The news articles support the notion that the sanctioning body (USAC) recognized their Gold Crown Champion, one of multiple champions that USAC recognizes and awards each year. That confirms its notability. While some of the articles are still working stubs/short, suggesting that they be deleted appears to be a case of WP:JNN, WP:JUSTAPOLICY, and perhaps even WP:IDL or WP:LACK. Doctorindy↔ Talk 17:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  The USAC recognising these championships has no bearing on whether or not they are notable. No-one is debating that these titles were awarded, and of course they should still be mentioned at, for example, List of USAC Championship Car seasons. Notability comes from substantial coverage in reliable sources. The sources you've given are highly routine or trivial mentions (and indeed are more about the awards nights than these championships). A7V2 ( talk) 02:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  
  Even if they are significant enough in their coverage, they are all from The Indianapolis Star. For establishing notability, multiple articles from one source still only count as a single source for purposes of the WP:GNG. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" 22:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  A simple search of Newspapers.com netted over 10,000 articles mentioning the USAC Gold Crown championship from 1983-1995, in papers from coast to coast. Using the Indianapolis Star articles was simply an easy starting point. I hesitated to produce additional links because they were being flatly dismissed without consideration. These articles can be improved. But deleting these articles serves little useful purpose other than intentionally creating confusing gaps in the Championship Car seasons. Furthermore the original claim of WP:FORK would technically be invalid. The Indy 500 is part of the Gold Crown Championship, not the other way around. A championship season with only race is still a championship season. Once again, this appears to be a case of WP:LACK. Doctorindy↔ Talk 15:56, 14 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  I read every one of the articles you gave above, and none provided substantial coverage of the respective USAC seasons, so please don't think they were being "dismissed without consideration". Please provide a source/sources which gives substantial coverage, even for one of these seasons. There could be 1,000,000 articles mentioning the Gold Crown championships from those years but mentions are not enough. I don't think WP:FORK is what you intended to link to, but to an extent I agree that the claim that these are WP:POV forks is a bit much, certainly there's no particular POV being expressed. Whether these are technically forks or not isn't really relevant as from all appearances they simply aren't notable, but can still be discussed at either the relevant Indy 500 race articles (which certainly are notable) or the List of USAC Championship Car seasons article. A7V2 ( talk) 03:08, 15 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete or merge per nom. There doesn't appear to be any substantial coverage in reliable sources for these particular seasons. It would be sufficient to add a short section to each year's Indy 500 article and we could redirect them there, or even a few sentences about there only being one race each of these seasons at List of USAC Championship Car seasons and redirecting there instead since it already lists the champions of each season. A7V2 ( talk) 03:00, 11 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Comment - It should be noted that the main page for United States Auto Club is a mess in its own right. Perhaps coverage of that entire organization is in need of WP:TNT. As such I have no opinion on any individual pages on that topic, broadly construed. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" 04:56, 14 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk) 12:48, 15 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 19:25, 22 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Redirect all to United States Auto Club#USAC Gold Crown Series which explains the situation in which for 11 years the Gold Crown Series consisted only of the Indy 500. All of the clippings provided by User:Doctorindy above appear to be quite similar, that is, reports from the Indianapolis Star about the USAC annual awards event where the Indy 500 winner was awarded the Gold Crown Series cash prize and awards, from eight different years. In most of these clippings, the Gold Crown Series is only a small part of the entire article anyway. If there are better sources about the individual seasons, I would need to see them before I could support keeping these articles. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:32, 22 October 2022 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure United States Auto Club#USAC Gold Crown Series is the best destination. As GhostOfDanGurney commented, the main USAC page is in rather a poor state and may well wind up undergoing significant revisions at some point. The List of USAC Championship Car seasons seems like a more relevant place to redirect to where the relevant information could easily be included. HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 13:58, 28 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to consider redirect options along with Keep/Delete options.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 20:12, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment Suggest redirecting to the individual corresponding Indianapolis 500 pages, and moving the content to a section at the bottom of that Indianapolis page. For example 1984–85 USAC Championship Car season would redirect to 1985 Indianapolis 500. The small amount of content from 1984–85 USAC Championship Car season article would be relocated to the bottom of 1985 Indianapolis 500, under a new section titled 1984–85 USAC Gold Crown Championship. Doctorindy↔ Talk 14:12, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
I can support this. I don't like redirecting all to United States Auto Club#USAC Gold Crown Series as much mostly because of how bad that article is. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^(
c/
t) 22:48, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Feel free to have a rename discussion on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 06:46, 2 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Shiraaz Mohamed

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

Hard to reconcile activist and journalist, which you'd think would be conflicting roles. Briefly kidnapped in Syria, escaped and returned home. Otherwise fails WP:GNG, leaving WP:ONEEVENT and with no enduring impact of said event. Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 11:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Photography, Terrorism, South Africa, and Syria. Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 11:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Rename: WP:ONEEVENT probably applies here, but it states "The general rule is to cover the event, not the person". Since the event is well covered and appears notable, the best option is to move to Kidnapping of Shiraaz Mohamed or similar. Greenman ( talk) 17:07, 15 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep and rename as per above this was a big news story and received lots of coverage. Park3r ( talk) 07:50, 18 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 19:19, 22 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep A renamed article about the event would have sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:00, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 20:10, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep and rename as per above comments. This article is quite important as a popular news story. Renaming the article will make it even clearer(and passes WP:ONEEVENT), but this should definitely be kept. Timothytyy ( talk) 08:11, 30 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep Per Google search and references attach to the article, the subject is notable. Kasar Wuya ( talk) 15:10, 30 October 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to List of hyperbolic comets. Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 20:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC) reply

C/2012 S4 (PanSTARRS)

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

The only coverage is from databases and the discovery announcement in CBET, and thus fails in WP:NASTCRIT, according to which multiple non-trivial published works, which contain significant commentary on the object are needed. Also, there is a problem with original research conserning the commentary in the article about the aphelion of the comet. -- C messier ( talk) 09:33, 15 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:10, 15 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment: I have fixed the original research by citing a barycentric orbit solution at epoch 2050 when the object will be outside of the planetary region. -- Kheider ( talk) 11:44, 15 October 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Kheider: the original research problem isn't so much the lack of references as it is the fact that the discussion about the aphelion distance derived from " meaningless epoch-dependent solutions" (an unsourced statement in the article) isn't discussed in any reliable published source, only by Wikipedia users. C messier ( talk) 12:27, 15 October 2022 (UTC) reply

It is known that the correct orbit solution for a long-period comet is to calculate the orbit when it is outside the influence of possible perturbations by the planets. It is also known that objects can not orbit the Sun at a distance of ~3+ light-years because passing stars will pull the object away. -- Kheider ( talk) 14:10, 15 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Redirect to List of hyperbolic comets. I couldn't find any substantial coverage besides the discovery bulletin. Praemonitus ( talk) 22:05, 18 October 2022 (UTC) reply

List of Solar System objects by greatest aphelion would probably be a better re-direct. -- Kheider ( talk) 04:20, 19 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Perhaps, although that article may be more subject to culling. Praemonitus ( talk) 03:24, 24 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider article and also, if redirected, what an appropriate target would be.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 19:17, 22 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Two different redirects suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 20:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment I have concerns about requesting custom orbital analyses from online tools, then using that tool output as a citation in an article, with user-provided commentary. Isn't this WP:OR? ☆ Bri ( talk) 16:22, 2 November 2022 (UTC) reply

It is a database lookup and passes wp:verifiability. It is known that For objects at such high eccentricity, barycentric coordinates are more stable than heliocentric coordinates -- Kheider ( talk) 15:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment, as the nominator, if it is going to become a redirect, I prefer to List of hyperbolic comets as the other list has some issues (it is listing the objects according to a measurement that doesn't represent reality, as it is evident by reading that article). -- C messier ( talk) 14:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Based on Dylnuge's deletion rationale. Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 05:14, 5 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Comparison of DNA melting prediction software

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

This list has the same problems as the list about to be deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of risk analysis Microsoft Excel add-ins (2nd nomination) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:59, 22 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:09, 22 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete, per the same argument I made at the Excel add-ins AfD mentioned above. Niche topic where none of the software itself is notable. It seems extremely unlikely to me that pages like this can remain accurate and neutral over time; even choosing what products to include in the comparison or what to compare them by is WP:SYNTH (and it's easy for someone to pick things that tilt towards their favored product), and already here we see that the information is incomplete for some products and generally unsourced. Granted, "it's hard to maintain this" isn't exactly a policy-driven argument (those would be WP:NOTDIRECTORY/ WP:NOTGUIDE and the notability argument), but it strikes me as important in this case—if someone can't rely on a page like this to be a current, accurate, complete, and neutral comparison, why have it? Dylnuge ^{(
Talk •
Edits)} 01:58, 28 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 19:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Strong Keep Came across an attempt to remove MQTT protocol comparison page and found this. Saying it a niche is nosense. Information is niche by its very definition. Its all specialised. The argument that hard to maintain is fallacious as well. It took me 10 mins to determine that lots of these are still active development, many of have moved off of legacy platforms and many of them have a large community. Lastly, as being ultra-specialised, at the extreme end of the scale is ideal for Wikipedia. Is is absolutly enclyclopedic knowledge. I'm sad that you managed to remove and Excel add-on comparison article. A product that used from between 400-600million people on a semi-regular basis. One of the most used products in history, which makes everything is use, as being notable. Changed from Keep to Strong Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scope creep ( talk • contribs)
Fair enough, "niche" is imprecise language and not a policy argument. Notable is a policy argument, though, and you didn't present any counter-claim that this is notable when it's a list of things that all themselves appear to fail notability (also, not a single argument in the Excel add-ons AfD claimed Excel wasn't notable). Dylnuge ^{(
Talk •
Edits)} 00:18, 3 November 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Dylnuge: You say they are not notable, when your a software engineer. Why are they not notable? The software here is so strange and unique. Also all of these are still under development, and per long-establish consensus any software that is under active development, gets a article. These could have articles if somebody wanted to do create them. I think like this that so far outside the mainstream is notable. scope_creep^Talk 00:10, 5 November 2022 (UTC) reply

To quickly clarify (re: my job), I make no claim to professional expertise on this subject; I work on networking and data storage infrastructure. I'm not a biologist or biochemist (I assume the target users of DNA melting prediction software), I've never used such software, I know nothing about it. So, lacking that expertise, I went ahead and searched for it—and wow is it hard to find any information about what this even is. Almost all the results are either commercial marketing websites for one of these products or whitepapers on one. And then there's this page. I spent a while searching—I tend to think I'm pretty good at my WP:BEFORE (or before-voting) searching—and as far as I can tell, DNA melting prediction software doesn't meet GNG. I can't find a single reliable independent secondary source describing the topic.

Now, as for Comparison of DNA melting prediction software, if none of the specific programs are notable, there's no WP:LSC to create a notable list. But if the topic that the thing is a list of isn't even notable to begin with, I don't even need to really make that argument. If you have sources that demonstrate the notability of DNA melting prediction software, please share them! I am always open to changing my vote when new evidence is presented!

On the other hand, per long-establish consensus any software that is under active development, gets a article is frankly completely untrue. WP:NSOFT are the guidelines around software notability. Like almost all notability guidelines, it looks at independent coverage in reliable sources. "Active development" isn't on there. I'm a bit confused by this statement; it seems to me that you're implying that almost every program in existence should have a Wikipedia article, which feels unlikely. Dylnuge ^{(
Talk •
Edits)} 01:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Snow delete. No reliable source indicating this is a populated place Firsfron of Ronchester 19:23, 3 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Mumurva, Arizona

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

Could not find any coverage of this place under any of its names. Appears to have just been a well. – dlthewave ☎ 19:56, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. – dlthewave ☎ 19:56, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete - On satellite it's in the middle of nowhere, way up at the end of "Indian Route 13". There are some buildings scattered about too, but I found nothing online about this place. It's also called "Huk Ovi Aponi-VI". I don't have access to the Wikipedia helicopter to be sure what's there, so I'll say delete. Magnolia677 ( talk) 21:17, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete The locale lacks any notability beyond the local level. TH1980 ( talk) 02:03, 30 October 2022 (UTC) reply
delete I did find one source that explained this somewhat [8]. It describes the place as a spring and says that a house was built in 1896 there, which is certainly consistent with the Hopi-style dwelling close by. That said, one house by a spring is not a notable settlement. Mangoe ( talk) 04:05, 30 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete The only thing I could find about it is this article in Wiki and same thing in some other unknown websites. Idunnox3 ( talk) 23:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC) reply
~~Keep~~ per WP:GEOLAND. US Department of the Interior publication "Decisions on Geographic Names in the United States" published in 1995 identifies it as "populated place", and ref added to the article. RecycledPixels ( talk) 04:30, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

WP:GEOLAND was recently updated and now states that that source (GNIS) is not reliable for establishing the notability of populated places (it sometimes misidentifies family farms and railroad sidings as "populated places"). Magnolia677 ( talk) 05:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

I'm not referring to GNIS, which, as I understand it, is a database. This was a DOI publication. It's currently reference #3 in the article. RecycledPixels ( talk) 05:49, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Apparently, the URL I linked in the reference wasn't very useful, so I've updated it, so hopefully it points to the correct location. RecycledPixels ( talk) 05:59, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Striking keep after reading the GNIS article. I am not persuaded that the source I found and added is sufficiently different from the GNIS database that has problems identifying populated places. RecycledPixels ( talk) 06:08, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete. Additional source "Becoming Hopi: A History" through Google Books mentions Mumurva, and identifies it as a spring on page 37. A second book, "Hopi Animal Stories", also on Google Books, makes a passing mention of Mumurva, and identifies it as a spring (p.58). Not a settled place. Both mentions are trivial in nature and not enough to satisfy WP:GNG RecycledPixels ( talk) 18:31, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lovy Elias. And, by the way, an individual church is not what we would consider a " denomination". Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 20:40, 5 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Revelation Church

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

Not sure about this one, but the sourcing seems bad to me, on account of being extremely... well, tribal, for lack of a better word. It's the type of coverage that gives vocal thanks to God when talking on the success of this church, and blandly reports that these guys focus on prophetic revelations and working miracles. Not exactly independent coverage, and I can't find anything substantial that is not all-caps Christian. But then I have little experience assessing the sourcing of religious bodies. Thoughts? -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 19:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 19:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Add: I hadn't realized that this is actually largely covered in context at Lovy Elias, as pointed out by Jahaza below. That makes it doubly unnecessary to have a badly-sourced separate article on this congregation. Suggest redirection to founder. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 19:04, 2 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete. Fails WP:ORG. 4meter4 ( talk) 20:08, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep Unreasonable deletion based on unreasonable reasons. the sourcing seems bad to me is a bad and unreasonable reason. Just because the sourcing is bad doesn't mean it is needed to be subjected to deletion. Read WP:ARTN, WP:NEXIST, WP:WHYN. and on It's the type of coverage that gives vocal thanks to God when talking on the success of this church, and blandly reports that these guys focus on prophetic revelations and working miracles, a user can fix that. Not a deletion. This is an irrational choice. My vote is Strong Keep. Ploreky^{Have a problem?} 05:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Ploreky: As soon as you demonstrate the existence of two or more items of in-depth, independent coverage, I'm all for that. But you DO have to show those... -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 09:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Elmidae: Before I decided to write about the subject I saw several sources of in-depth, independent coverage but due to there being many sources that write about the church I decided to filter them and pick the ones I used as reference since you said they're bad sources, I've found more and still researching online to see if I will find more but first of all check the ones below, to me, they demonstrate in-depth, independent coverage ( https://guardian.ng/news/five-things-you-need-to-know-about-revelation-church/), ( https://www.vanguardngr.com/2022/02/the-ministry-of-revelation-church-california-united-states/), ( https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2022/11/01/revelation-church-from-a-bible-prayer-group-to-a-congregation-of-thousands/). Iwillkeepitup ( talk) 09:12, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Frankly, no. All three of those seem to be rephrased press releases - i.e. material that the church itself provides, minimally worked up by the press (note that they have essentially identical content). This is the stuff that I found as well, but it is not in-depth coverage, nor independent. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 09:25, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Elmidae: Honestly, I find it difficult to see your point because it is obvious that these sources are not Press releases, and It is not stated anywhere in the sources that the material was provided by the church. All I see is the editors discussing the church in detail, you don't expect them to write what they don't know just so that they don't say the same thing, a Journalist only writes or says what they can prove from their investigation. Iwillkeepitup ( talk) 09:58, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Elmidae say what you want to say brother. I've already told my side. This article has enough verification for it's existence. And hence, can be kept to wikipedia. Regardless of that, "all denominations are notable". A deletionist, in most of these cases, are actually affiliated to the subject. Do you, perhaps, know anything or affiliated with the subject? Ploreky^{Have a problem?} 07:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Redirect I think Lovy Elias is probably notable [9] [10], but that the church is so far not independently notable. Therefore, I'd suggest that the article be merged/redirected to Lovy Elias. Jahaza ( talk) 18:10, 2 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep There is the existence of sources of in-depth, independent coverage. Seems like the editor is eager to delete the page. Iwillkeepitup ( talk) 23:51, 4 November 2022 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Iwillkeepitup ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. — Iwillkeepitup ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 20:34, 5 November 2022 (UTC) reply

LeverageEdu

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

Fails GNG and NCORP. The page relies exclusively on regurgitated press release stories, funding/partnership announcements and listicles. Maduant ( talk) 18:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Education, India, and California. Maduant ( talk) 18:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete: a directory-like listing for un unremarkable private company. Fails WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH; sources are in passing and / or WP:SPIP. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:33, 5 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No indication found that the subject complies with guidelines at WP:ARTIST. Article appears to be promotional in nature. Joyous! | Talk 05:58, 5 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Stephen Albair

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

This article is nominated for deletion because the subject of the article is a living person who appears to have created this page about himself as self promotion with the help of an associate, a trave writer John Vlahides, who appears to have helped him create the page. This San Francisco associate John Vlahide =User:KryponiteSF/John Vlahides, also created his own autobiographical page in 2013 and then appears to have begun the creation of Stephen Albair's promotional biography as all the early pages are by him. The subject of the article also appears to have done major editing and writing, without sources, including his artist resume, which is not published anywhere and just created by the artist listing many shows that are not sourced anywhere. This is a clear case of autobiography and solicitation of others to assist in creating a promotional page under the guise of a biography. Most of the links are to pages created by the subject himself, as there are large sections of his personal history with no sources whatsever. He posts images of what he claims are articles, but there is no original source.

For example, footnotes 16 and 17 go to his own website, with images of purported articles.

http://www.stephenalbair.com/pdf/BKK_POST_2008.pdf

http://www.stephenalbair.com/pdf/BangkockPost.pdf

Others are dead links such as https://www.kathmandu-bkk.com/exhibition_past021.html

It also has multiple issues, some dating back to 2013 when it was created, including

This article is an orphan, (May 2013)

This article needs additional citations for verification. (August 2020)

This article uses bare URLs, which are uninformative and vulnerable to link rot. (August 2022) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElongatedGrin ( talk • contribs) 06:52, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 October 29. — ^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:32, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Photography, and California. Shellwood ( talk) 16:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete wow; zero sources found about the artist other than listings or photo credits. The art works uploaded here are listed as copyrighted by the artist but are uploaded by another person as "own work", so likely a copyvio. Likely COI article creation per above. Oaktree b ( talk) 18:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete highly promotional article with essentially no reliable, independent sourcing. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 20:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete This artist does not meet WP:NARTIST. I fail to find a reliable source that he has ever been included in the an exhibition at the Renwick. I removed uncited exhibition items and removed images that have been nominated for deletion at the commons. WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 02:07, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:29, 5 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Trojan Construction Group

AfDs for this article:

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

Was soft deleted recently through AfD, with only SunDawn and Alyo participating. Same issues still apply, and no improvement since last AfD. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:22, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Arab Emirates. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:22, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete -- there were no changes, only one source is about the construction group, the rest are about the holding company that used to be called Trojan. Alyo ( chat· edits) 15:27, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete - nearly all references are talking about Alpha Dhabi Holding, not Trojan Construction Group. If we have an Alpha Dhabi Holding article this article could be redirected there. References provided are mostly about routine coverage, and no in-depth coverage that satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH is seen in the article. WP:REFBOMBING is also an issue in this article. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 17:02, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete: fails NCORP and GNG Josey Wales^Parley 11:51, 30 October 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:29, 5 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Gloria Decker

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

WP:BLP of a smalltown mayor and government appointee to unelected bureaucratic roles, not properly sourced as having a strong claim to notability for either of those things. As always, neither mayors nor civil servants get automatic notability freebies just for existing, but rather a person in either of those roles has to be shown to pass WP:GNG on her sourcing to earn inclusion in Wikipedia -- but the referencing here isn't cutting it in terms of getting her over GNG.
Four of the eight footnotes are primary sources that aren't support for notability at all (her own self-published staff profile on the website of a past employer and a Q&A interview with one of her own colleagues on the website of a university) -- and of the four footnotes that are media coverage, one is just reduplicated repetition of one of the others, one just glances off her existence in an article that isn't about her in any non-trivial sense, and one is essentially just run of the mill local coverage in the local media where coverage of local mayors is simply expected to exist. So only one footnote here is actually building notability in any meaningful sense, and that's not enough. Bearcat ( talk) 14:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and New Jersey. Bearcat ( talk) 14:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Sal2100 ( talk) 19:04, 3 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom, fails GNG. Passing mentions do not contribute towards notability. 𓃦LunaEatsTuna ( 💬) 15:37, 4 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 14:30, 5 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Saskatchewan Marshals Service

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

WP:TOOSOON article about a proposed thing that was just announced three days ago and does not yet pass WP:GNG. This was announced in the government's throne speech on Wednesday, but has not yet had any of the enabling legislation actually presented for debate or voting -- so there's just nothing of any real substance that can be said about it yet without lapsing into speculation, and it remains inside the realm of possibility that the whole idea will just get cancelled or rethought or just not happen at all for some other reason.
So obviously no prejudice against recreation if and when it actually happens, but we need a lot more than just one source announcing that something has been proposed to justify a Wikipedia article about it. Bearcat ( talk) 14:41, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and Canada. Bearcat ( talk) 14:41, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete TOOSOON. Making an announcement is a long way from GNG; no one's been hired and they don't have staff. Can revisit probably in six months when the province gets stuff underway for the force. Oaktree b ( talk) 18:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 14:28, 5 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Grupo Insud

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

No evidence of notability. Also noticing what is likely undeclared WP:COI editing coming up on related topics in WP:AFC Greenman ( talk) 14:10, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Argentina. Shellwood ( talk) 14:26, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:TNT and WP:PROMO. There is enough significant independent coverage in google books and google scholar to pass WP:ORGCRIT/ WP:SIGCOV in doing a WP:BEFORE search. So I don't think a non-notable claim can be made here. That said, the article is non-encyclopedic in tone, is largely unreferenced/ unverified, and has been written by a COI editor. It needs a complete re-write with careful attention to sourcing and tone. In my opinion its best to delete and allow a non-COI editor to start over if they wish to. 4meter4 ( talk) 14:44, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 14:27, 5 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Habib Subah

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

So, usually we suggest that professional snooker players are likely notable, but I can't find much about this person actually being professional, and even if they were, there's nothing in the way of sourcing suggesting they are notable. They barely participated in professional events Lee Vilenski ^{(
talk •
contribs)} 13:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cue sports, and Bahrain. Lee Vilenski ^{(
talk •
contribs)} 13:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete - I found some routine coverage of results when searching, but no coverage that would amount to a WP:GNG pass. Please ping me if good sources are identified. BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 23:58, 4 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Ibrahim Bidhi

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

Badly sourced BLP cited only to a stats database, no evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Arabic searches came back with a few trivial mentions in squad lists but nothing more. Best sources were Sport KSA, Al Riyadh and Al Weeam all of which only mention Bidhi once in a list of footballers. I could not find any significant, detailed coverage of this footballer. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:22, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Saudi Arabia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:22, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:02, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:41, 30 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete - fails WP:GNG; I can't find any Arabic language sources that cover the subject in any detail. Jogurney ( talk) 17:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom Devoke water 18:20, 4 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 08:26, 5 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Yan Lin Aung

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

Badly sourced BLP, no evidence of meeting WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC, even when searching using Burmese script. Best I can find is Liputan6 and Kompas, which are both some way short of the mark. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Myanmar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:02, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:41, 30 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney ( talk) 13:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 SmartBus#Routes. Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 05:16, 5 November 2022 (UTC) reply

902 (PTV Bus)

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

Starting a deletion discussion about this because I do not want to create an edit war. This topic does not appear to meet the general notability guideline. We are also not a guide or directory, it is not our job to list every single public and private bus route that exists in perpetuity. For example, not every single Manhattan bus route has or deserves an article. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 03:38, 23 October 2022 (UTC) reply

This is a re-creation of an article discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Route 902, Victorian Bus Route, where there was an unambiguous consensus to redirect. JBW ( talk) 10:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. JBW ( talk) 09:32, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

I originally closed this discussion as a speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G4 at 09:49, 23 October 2022. However, the validity of that deletion has been questioned at deletion review, and rather than waste time letting it be discussed first at deletion review and then at a new AfD, it seems to me more constructive to just reopen this original AfD. I am relisting so that the discussion still gets a full week.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Redirect to SmartBus#Routes for lacking signficant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to establish notability. As of this version of the article, there are 10 references.

References 1,2, 9, and 10 are bus route/timetable which is useful to verify facts but utterly useless for establishing notability

References 3 and 4 are from the same blog, an unreliable source

References 5 and 7 are not independent as the route is a Victoria government service contracted to Kinetic to operate

Reference 6 and 8 are about the award of contract and make no mention of route 902

So in total, the sourcing in the article has exactly zero sources that contribute to establishing notability. -- Whpq ( talk) 12:30, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Redirect to SmartBus#Routes. Nothing has changed since the last AfD except that the article creator has decided to go all-out to try and keep a standalone article, without the requisite understanding of notability that might actually give said article a chance at a standalone page. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 14:24, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep As there is enough reliable sources to deem this article notable with primary sources backed up with secondary source. People contesting for deletion will continously suggest this article to be deleted regardless of whether there are enough reliable sources or not. Whpq has consistently made source assesments with minimal research to benefit his push to what he wants to do with the article, most deletion attempts are likely just a case of ( WP:IDONTLIKEIT) ( talk) 1:39, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

@ NotOrrio: Thanks for your vote! However, you appear to misunderstand that sources don't just have to be reliable, they also need to be independent, usually secondary, and constitute of significant coverage. How are these requirements met here for at least two sources? Further, re-creating the article with little improvement and stating that accurate, policy-based rationales are WP:IDONTLIKEIT is unhelpful in helping the article retention. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 07:18, 30 October 2022 (UTC) reply

If you continue your bad-faith aspersions (such as the one right here) and refactoring other editors' comments, you time on this project will come to an end very shortly. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 14:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Redirect to SmartBus#Routes per Whpq's analysis. The refs, a collection of non-SIGCOV bus routes and timetables, trivial mentions, and governmental websites (non-independent and non-SIGCOV) fails WP:GNG. The article creator attempts to state that the redirect comments are motivated by WP:IDONTLIKEIT after their keep rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Route 902, Victorian Bus Route was considered by others at WP:ILIKEIT. However, they are unable to articulate a policy-based rationale on which two or three refs demonstrate WP:GNG being met. VickKiang (talk) 07:13, 30 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Redirect to SmartBus#Routes. I feel like we are just repeating the same points that were raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Route 902, Victorian Bus Route, there has been no new arguments raised or valid reliable secondary sources provided since that time that even go close to satisfying WP:GNG. Dan arndt ( talk) 11:02, 30 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Redirect to SmartBus#Routes per above. XtraJovial ( talk • contribs) 18:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Redirect to SmartBus#Routes as above. Deus et lex ( talk) 20:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Redirect per the consensus at the previous AfD and Whpq's analysis. I entirely agree with Dan arndt that none of the new sources contribute to establishing notability, and no new reasons to keep the article have been provided in this discussion. Caeciliusinhorto-public ( talk) 14:22, 2 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 08:25, 5 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Indika Wickramarachchi

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

rejected at AfC but moved to main space by creator, fails WP:GNG sources are interviews and Facebook. Theroadislong ( talk) 09:00, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, and Sri Lanka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete, fails WP:ANYBIO / WP:NACTOR, requires significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. Facebook and YouTube are not acceptable sources. Dan arndt ( talk) 09:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Chanaka L ( talk) 09:51, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Chanakal@ Dan arndt@ Spiderone@ Theroadislong

Sir Evry Detail in my article are 100% true Some details i collect by calling him this is 100% true article so i can't understand why you all are trying to delete it

Plese Don't delete this article i wrote this without taking even a sleep Wicsakiwdss ( talk) 16:48, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

You can't do original research for an article, that's not permitted. We're asking for proof the person has been covered at length in reliable, third-party sources. What we have now is a long way from that. Oaktree b ( talk) 18:55, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

and you've already been told in AfC this wasn't ready for an article, yet you moved it anyway, against advice, into mainspace. This isn't for publication of your research, we need to see reliably-sourced articles. Oaktree b ( talk) 18:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete - fails WP:GNG, WP:FILMMAKER and alleged awards do not satisfy WP:ANYBIO. Creator's admission that they have gathered the info themselves by telephoning the subject of the article is a clear violation of WP:NOR, which is one of our three core policies that we absolutely must follow. I also believe that there is undisclosed WP:COI due to the above. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:23, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete: Fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:NACTOR, and Filmmaker/director. A problem is likely the unavailability of sources. When a search does not produce anything substantial the burden is on those wanting inclusion. Currently the article is sourced mainly with "National Arts Newspaper of Sri Lanka" and YouTube. The ica interview discusses a 12-minute and 10 minute short film, however, such interviews are considered primary sources so not independent. While YouTube may sometimes be used as a reliable source or in the "External links", I would offer those in the article have not been checked for copyright violations. See: WP:ELNEVER, WP:COPYLINK, WP:YT. A BLP is held to a higher standard so care has to be used concerning YouTube. Even if acceptable as a source YouTube would not pass the criteria to advance notability. As a member of AFC I would wonder why someone would publish an article against advice? It would seem that a procedural move back there would have been in order but that would likely only delay the inevitable. -- Otr500 ( talk) 23:12, 2 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 08:21, 5 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Shivam Sadana

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

Shivam Sadana does not seem notable as singer. Fails WP:NSINGER. SpeakNeak ( talk) 07:55, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and India. SpeakNeak ( talk) 07:55, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttarakhand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:10, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment I reviewed Shivam's page and found all the news links in it, Outlook (Indian magazine), [11], Dainik Jagran, [12], Patrika, [13], The Pioneer (India), [14], Punjab Kesari, [15], Amar Ujala, [16], News18 India, [17] all these news links say that this singer is notable and we can also read on these news links, all these news links are Independents according to the Wikipedia WP:GNG i think pass to WP:SINGER. 🦁 Lionfox 🏹 0909 ( talk) 19:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)(sock strike. Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 06:44, 5 November 2022 (UTC)) reply
delete these are paid articles and thus cannot be considered as independent sources to verify claims and notability. 117.210.146.182 ( talk) 19:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
~~How can you say without evidence that this paid is an article, if you have evidence, then give proof of that thing WP:EDITWAR 🦁 Lionfox 🏹 0909 ( talk)~~ 10:39, 30 October 2022 (UTC) (sock strike Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 06:44, 5 November 2022 (UTC)) reply
the article category in Outlook (Indian magazine) is (for brands/spotlight) which is the paid section of of the magazine. The News18 India category of the article is press release which itself proves that these is paid coverage, apart from this, having worked as a P.R manager I can confirm all of these are paid coverages which you mentioned. 117.210.148.171 ( talk) 16:30, 3 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy delete. CSD G5 Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 06:29, 2 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Vivek Verma (musician)

AfDs for this article:

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

Vivek Verma doesn't satisfy WP:GNG, lacking in-depth coverage. SpeakNeak ( talk) 07:53, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and India. SpeakNeak ( talk) 07:53, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Comment - Well this has been one of the most controversial AFd's I've seen lol, the nominator decides to nominate this page all of sudden after their last edit which was in 2018 [18] and ironically they don't even care to check the sources which are in the article most majority of them have been published after its last AFD yet the nominator SpeakNeak writes lacking in-depth coverage as the reason. Undoubtedly the subject has grown with time in terms of sources and do have a malicious history but the fact that his all the Independent (Mostly) In Depth Coverages reflects him complying WP:NPOSSIBLE. For Instance see This, This, This and This So its a Keep for me keeping the sources and his work in mind Surya^beej ^⋠talk⋡ 09:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

PS-I have already been researching on Verma as his songs and recreated versions are hitting charts and playlists on social media and streaming platforms like Spotify. Surya^beej ^⋠talk⋡ 09:10, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 06:42, 5 November 2022 (UTC) reply

M. Angamuthu

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

~~WP:NN government civil servant. 🦁 Lionfox 🏹 0909 ( talk) 07:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC)~~ WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗ plicit 13:49, 4 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 🦁 Lionfox 🏹 0909 ( talk) 07:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Assam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:11, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete: Elected officers are notable but he is appointed officer. Contributor008 ( talk) 16:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete functionary, high-level, but not notable. Oaktree b ( talk) 18:44, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 06:06, 5 November 2022 (UTC) reply

T. S. Nandakumar

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

Fairly large and detailed page, with ample photos to boot! The only thing I found missing was sources that helped define notability. A search on Google News, ProQuest, and The Wikipedia Library found nothing but mentions in program notes and a judge by the same name. Seems to be a vanity page. Why? I Ask ( talk) 04:18, 22 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and India. Why? I Ask ( talk) 04:18, 22 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:43, 22 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Reduced the fairly large and detailed content of the page and removed the ample photos present in that page Pvenkata0711 ( talk) 13:46, 26 October 2022 (UTC) reply

That's not the issue with the page. The issue is the subject is not notable enough for inclusion. Why? I Ask ( talk) 14:16, 26 October 2022 (UTC) reply

So what is needed to be notable enough for inclusion ? So do we need some sources or articles online which proves the content oft hat page? Pvenkata0711 ( talk) 14:40, 26 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Yes, please read up at Wikipedia:Notability for more information, particularly for what kinds of sources are needed. I also request you do not remove the AfD tag from the page or the discussion from the deletion sorting lists as you did earlier. Why? I Ask ( talk) 14:50, 26 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Sorry about that! Was editing the whole page according to the wiki standard guidelines so missed that. I read the Wikipedia:Notability page. Could you please help me in improving this page and determine how to provide such notable articles and JFYI He is a renowned musician in Indian Community so I don't want to get him removed from Wiki. It would be much appreciated if you help me in considering and helping me in maintaining those verified content and from whom it should be. - Thank You! Pvenkata0711 ( talk) 14:57, 26 October 2022 (UTC) reply

I have added some new sources and links to the page , Please let me know your thoughts on this. Also i have many newspaper cuttings. Would you help me on this as i can send them to you or would you be able to help me as how to add that newspaper articles online. Pvenkata0711 ( talk) 22:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

I have many newspaper article of T S Nandakumar, Can i upload it ? Also can you put this deletion on hold until i upload these articles in google books ? Also can you let me know how much time will i get to upload this or can this deletion be put on hold - Thank You Pvenkata0711 ( talk) 15:06, 27 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Let me know what specific improvements can i make to this wiki page. - Thank You Pvenkata0711 ( talk) 13:49, 26 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 06:14, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Hi Liz, Could you please help me in improving /info/en/?search=T._S._Nandakumar page , I have added additional resources and sources. I have many newspaper cuttings, Not sure how to upload them in google news. Could you please help me in doing that. I tried uploading it but i didn't see an option for PDF to publish a newspaper article or something specific is required. Pvenkata0711 ( talk) 23:16, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete Oh he's well-known AND versatile? Strange, as I can't find any sources that are substantial or RS for use here. The use of flowery language is a red flag for notability. Your actions have to speak for themselves; using puffy words usually means you aren't notable. Oaktree b ( talk) 18:46, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
I have added some new sources and links to the page , Please let me know your thoughts on this. Also i have many newspaper cuttings. Would you help me on this as i can send them to you or would you be able to help me as how to add that newspaper articles online. Pvenkata0711 ( talk) 22:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete Per nom. Once you take away all the elf-published and advertising links you have almost nothing left. Subject fails ANYBIO, MUSICBIO, and GNG. Chris Troutman ( talk) 23:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 04:29, 5 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Benjamin Agus

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

This man doesn't seem notable. The only reference is a wiki website. Not deemed notable. Please add more refsssss. Even 2 will sufice, just to verify this man. Ploreky^{Have a problem?} 03:28, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. and has also been included in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Ploreky^{Have a problem?} 03:39, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and England. Shellwood ( talk) 08:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
The reference is originally from Dictionary of National Biography which is a high quality reliable source. The wikisource site is directly copying it because it is in the public domain, Atlantic306 ( talk) 15:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep. Inclusion in a national biographical dictionary is enough for notability via WP:ANYBIO. The modern dictionary has a long article on him, available via Wikipedia Library, with the surname spelled "Agas". "Benjamin Agas" finds multiple pages of hits in Google Books. Espresso Addict ( talk) 05:20, 30 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep per WP:ANYBIO as per Espresso Addict. Possibly move to "Agas" spelling. Jahaza ( talk) 20:25, 3 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 03:41, 5 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Michelle Von Emster case

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

There is some coverage, but nothing substantial. The case was covered by the popular BuzzFeed Unsolved series, which explains the 1000+ monthly pageviews. Does it clear the notability bar for events? Mooonswimmer 03:03, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and California. Shellwood ( talk) 08:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete Possible shark attack victim isn't notable. The large part of the article is unsourced and appears to question the validity of the autopsy; appears to be some sort of a "protest" for the case to be re-opened? I find nothing confirming these allegations; who knows. Long way from GNG. Oaktree b ( talk) 18:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete per the WP:EVENT guideline, there is insufficient support for a WP:LASTING effect with WP:BUZZFEED sensationalism in 2017, a brief mention in 65 years of San Diego shark encounters (San Diego Tribune, 2016), two blogs, and a spreadsheet from sharkattackfile.net. The WP:GEOSCOPE of one tabloid-style source is not sufficient to support notability, and my search has not found better sources. The WP:DEPTH of coverage is also limited to Buzzfeed's sensationalized speculation, and the Tribune mention appears to be within this section of the guideline's note that Media sources sometimes report on events because of their similarity (or contrast, or comparison) to another widely reported incident. Editors should not rely on such sources to afford notability to the new event, since the main purpose of such articles is to highlight either the old event or such types of events generally. Beyond these two sources, there does not appear to be WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, and neither of these sources are strong support for event notability. There also does not appear to be WP:DIVERSE independent and reliable coverage. Beccaynr ( talk) 20:03, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 03:41, 5 November 2022 (UTC) reply

CIIO-FM (defunct)

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

Nearly all the sources are CRTC decisions regarding this tourist information station, and I think the one that clearly isn't is an (unlinked) forum posting — I cannot imagine that any of that is enough to meet the GNG. It would not surprise me if the reason this article is titled at a deprecated disambiguator is because CIIO-FM has been salted since 2017, after several recreations following an earlier AfD on what I'm pretty sure is this station and several similar, related stations — and there seems to be some evidence that this is indeed a recreation of the earlier article, which could easily tip this over into G4 territory. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete. WP:NMEDIA explicitly deprecates low-power tourist information stations as non-notable, the earlier AFD was indeed about a network of related stations that included this one, and the sourcing shown here (entirely CRTC licensing documents and other primary sources) is not sufficient to render this tourist information station a special case of greater notability than other tourist information stations. Bearcat ( talk) 15:12, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete Fails WP:NMEDIA per Bearcat's argument. SBKSPP ( talk) 23:45, 4 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. The sentiment here is that, while the article has its problems, AFD is not cleanup. ✗ plicit 03:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Mutual fund trust

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

This article feels very poorly written. Chunks of the article seem to be copied from the sole reference word-for-word. RPI2026F1 ( talk) 03:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Canada. RPI2026F1 ( talk) 03:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Comment Earwig shows that the article is assembled from chunks of text taken verbatim from half a dozen sources. The amount taken from each source is not large, but hardly any of the article text is original language. Not sure what the appropriate action is on this, but I’m guessing TNT and rewrite from a fresh start. Mccapra ( talk) 05:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 03:14, 22 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 02:46, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep article seems to be copied from several sources per user:Mccapra’s assessment. Article needs work, but deletion is not the answer. Frank Anchor 03:37, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep Agreed the article as written is very poor and needs work, however if this reference from a law firm is reliable then approximately a third of all Canadians hold MFTs - which as a 'thing' is notable.[ [19]] ResonantDistortion ( talk) 19:35, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep the article needs to be tidied up Devoke water 18:24, 4 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Legoktm ( talk) 01:32, 6 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Elie Seckbach

AfDs for this article:

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

I found a malformed nomination at the title Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elie Seckbach while cleaning up old AfDs that were never closed properly. It originally contained, prior to being overwritten,

This page does not contain one single reference. Its only purpose seems to be to list off Youtube stats and mention accolades while providing zero proof. I don't believe Elie is a legitimate journalist and I don't see how he warrants having a Wikipedia page.
— — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeafK1 ( talk • contribs) 00:38, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

The article has not improved in the intervening years, and is still filled with unsupported promotion and invalid sources. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:31, 15 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball, Boxing, Olympics, Israel, and United States of America. — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 02:33, 15 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Hi hueman1, per WP:NEXIST not containing any references is not a reason to AfD. If you did not find that there is any substantial problem with the article, this AfD should be closed as procedural keep. You did mention promotion. Is your claim that the promotion is so strong that WP:TNT is in order? Or do you claim that the subject is WP:NN? Or both? Just wondering. I'm open to all options! gidonb ( talk) 18:31, 15 October 2022 (UTC) reply

I assume you meant to ping me; the original nomination I quoted seems to end with a circumlocution for "not notable", which I didn't investigate super-hard before refiling since I figured I should still give it a shot at life. If you think this should be substantively kept, feel free to !vote that way, but I saw what looked like a plausible reason for deletion so would oppose a procedural close. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:52, 15 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Sorry, I pinged the wrong person. Thanks for the response! gidonb ( talk) 22:30, 15 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep. Profile in the Los Angeles Times in 2018. Looking for second GNG source, but the main article needs clean up. -- Enos733 ( talk) 00:51, 16 October 2022 (UTC) reply
I think a second source might be from Ring magazine. - Enos733 ( talk) 00:58, 16 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Also stories in the Sacramento Bee and Sports Illustrated describing the subject's journalistic style. - Enos733 ( talk) 01:39, 16 October 2022 (UTC) reply

I can't tell if this story in the Sports Business Journal is original reporting or just rephrasing the LA Times profile. -- Enos733 ( talk) 21:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 02:08, 22 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep; while one's a blog (sacbee), we've got others up above this very line in previous reviews and there's the interview with the LA Times. Maybe he's a little obscure, but he seems to meet WP:GNG. -- Dennis The Tiger ( Rawr and stuff) 03:36, 22 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 02:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete The LA Times article is solid, but that's the only coverage I can find for RS. Oaktree b ( talk) 02:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete. Nothing in this establishes notability. The LA Times article is valid but not enough by itself. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 20:34, 5 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Ploreky^{Have a problem?} 08:08, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Instituto San Sebastián Yumbel

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

Non notable high school. Bedivere ( talk) 02:41, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Chile. AllyD ( talk) 07:31, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Christianity. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:12, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Question: Should not the articles Liceo Agustín Ross Edwards, Instituto Cardenal Caro, Liceo El Rosario, Liceo Mercedes Urzúa Díaz, Liceo Mirella Catalán Urzúa, Liceo Pablo Neruda and the bulk of what is in Category:Schools in Cachapoal Province be evaluated here also? Dentren | ^Talk 09:56, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies Bedivere ( talk) 13:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
It may be advantageous to deal with many articles facing similar problems in a single batch. Dentren | ^Talk 19:46, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
No. Bedivere ( talk) 19:51, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Withdrawn I've come to the conclusion that the school is notable enough for inclusion on the encyclopedia. However, referencing should be improved and it should read less like an advertisement. Bedivere ( talk) 20:03, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 04:18, 5 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Mobile phone industry in the United States

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

The entire article could be deleted as the material in it is found elsewhere in other WP articles. This article consists mostly of grossly incomplete (and inaccurate) lists of US mobile phone companies and phone manufacturers. Those lists already exist much more complete and up-to-date in other articles. There is really no text to speak of, about the US cell phone industry, other than a single reference to the FCC. This article has been in need of expansion (and is so tagged) since 2010. I just tried editing it and expanding the lists, but it seems a redundant endeavor. Propose this article for deletion. 107.115.33.8 (talk) 20:38, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor--above text is copypasted from the article talk page. I haven't looked deep enough into this myself to offer up a !vote, but the reasoning seems sound. -- Finngall ^talk 02:10, 8 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep: although I agree the article is in poor shape and can be improved, the topic is certainly notable, meets the WP:GNG, and seems like a reasonable split from Mobile phone, along with similar articles on China, Japan, Russia, Pakistan, and others. Deletion is not cleanup. I can see tons of academic papers, books, and newspaper articles covering this topic from the 1980s to present. Not seeing a need for WP:TNT here. —Ganesha811 ( talk) 19:15, 9 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 02:13, 15 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and United States of America. — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 02:35, 15 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Merge to ~~Tele~~ communications in the United States Andre 🚐 03:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC) reply
- Comment Andre, that is a redirect page so it wouldn't be a good merge target page. Liz ^{Read!
  Talk!} 05:29, 16 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  - Good point. Fixed. Andre 🚐 05:30, 16 October 2022 (UTC) reply
- While that article lacks references as well as adequate substance for such a far-reaching topic, it's funny that the sole section on "wireless" contains only a backlink to THIS article as the "main" article. Hardly "main". Seems to me the article you suggest could also be DELETED.

As a furtherance of this, why is that article called "Communications in the US" rather than "Telecommunications in the US"? Methinks there is another more extensive article that THAT article could be merged into.

Merge is probably the wrong need for BOTH articles, as I suspect that all the material in them is redundant. Low or no content, irrelevant, unreferenced, found elsewhere: these characteristics make any article a candidate for deletion, possibly speedy. 107.122.85.10 ( talk) 18:29, 22 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 01:23, 22 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete. This could easily be a Speedy Deletion. The entirety of content consists of two somewhat irrelevant statements about the FCC and Qualcomm, identifying them and not saying anything of importance, an overly long paragraph on the British vs American terms mobile phone vs cell phone, which seems out of place here, and a couple links to other articles. There are no references/citations at all in the entire article. This appears less than a stub. It should have been speedy-deleted years ago. 107.122.85.10 ( talk) 18:10, 22 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It's ironic that there is no consensus as the article is very brief and just has links to other articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 02:37, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete per WP:TNT. Possible speedy delete candidate per WP:A3. The article doesn't actually have any content on the "mobile phone industry in the United States". The only content in the article is about British versus American English which has really nothing to do with topic. Could there be an article at this page? Yes. But does the current article serve any useful purpose (such as navigation) or provide any meaningful content on the topic? No. We could have an article here, but not like this. 4meter4 ( talk) 15:03, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 03:45, 5 November 2022 (UTC) reply

ProTesys

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

i barely find anything about this band and they havent even released anything other than a demo 15 years ago FMSky ( talk) 02:30, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music. FMSky ( talk) 02:30, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete - They are mentioned briefly in lists of bands from Cuba, and basic user-generated directories like Metal Archives. I also found a brief blog review of their 2008 demo. But otherwise the nominator is correct, because the band seems to have disappeared before they got off the ground, and they accomplished nothing that would have earned the in-depth media coverage that is necessary here. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 00:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 02:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Mount Ridley College

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

Previously PRODed by User:Red-tailed hawk, then deprodded by User:Necrothesp without improvement, then PRODed by User:SunDawn. I've deprodded it again because it's no longer eligible for proposed deletion, but this fails WP:NSCHOOL. Sources are routine coverage on covid (non-SIGCOV), 1, 2, coverage from a local tabloid (probably non-RS, most are also routine) 1, 2, 3, a routine (non-SIGCOV) video, and another two hits mention (non-SIGCOV). Thus, WP:NSCHOOL is failed. VickKiang (talk) 02:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. VickKiang (talk) 02:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete School that does not pass WP:ORG or WP:GNG. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 02:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete - This isn't an article. It's a sentence. It is referenced only to the school's site. I can find no significant coverage that would establish notability. -- Whpq ( talk) 02:31, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete, fails WP:NSCHOOL, lacks any coverage in reliable secondary sources. Dan arndt ( talk) 03:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar ( talk) 09:53, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete: Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Hey man im josh ( talk) 14:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 02:16, 5 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Fuzzy entropy and similarity based feature selection method

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

Dry technical description of a mathematical formula that appears to have been invented by the article's author (username "Pasiluukka", cited sources written by "P. Luukka".) No significant secondary source coverage or claim to notability. XenonNSMB ( talk, contribs) 02:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XenonNSMB ( talk, contribs) 02:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete no sources found in Jstor or GScholar. The ones in the article have no online links, so it seems a wee bit fishy. Oaktree b ( talk) 02:20, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Comment. Everything with "fuzzy" in the title seems a wee bit fishy to me, but it is often well-cited. This is no exception. The main reference (Luukka 2011) has 321 citations in Google scholar. How many of those count as in-depth and independent coverage of the same concept is a different question. — David Eppstein ( talk) 06:12, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

That's my experience with "fuzzy" logic, learning, etc. as well. The concept of "fuzzy entropy" is older than this particular application [20], so perhaps it would make more sense to have an article on that instead. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:29, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cyprus Police. Legoktm ( talk) 01:33, 6 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Emergency Response Unit (Cyprus)

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

Unit within a police force doesn't seem to meet WP:NORG - lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. Merging into Cyprus Police may be a worthwhile WP:ATD. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:56, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:14, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete lacks independent sources and has possible WP:OR Shadow4dark ( talk) 02:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Merge into Cyprus Police per nomination statement. Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 01:32, 5 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 06:04, 5 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Strictly non-palindromic number

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

The term "strictly non-palindromic number" does not appear to have significant coverage in peer-reviewed math papers, so it appears to fail WP:GNG. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 00:56, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 00:56, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete. I believe that OEIS counts as a reliable published source; its peer-review process is strict and multi-leveled. But that's only one and we need multiple sources. I couldn't find any others that cover this concept in depth and appear reliable (there are some random sources like [21] that use the title phrase, apparently copied from Wikipedia; they aren't in-depth, are not reliable for mathematics, and anyway fail WP:CIRCULAR). — David Eppstein ( talk) 01:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete Only reference is an OEIS article that essentially shows the concept exists. Not enough WP:SIGCOV to warrant a WP:GNG pass. Frank Anchor 03:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete The OEIS by itself does not establish notability as it catalogs hundreds upon hundreds of non-notable sequences. Partofthemachine ( talk) 06:17, 30 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep I would agree that this page is a non-essential type of math page. It's more a "having fun with numbers" kind of page, and is probably why it isn't referenced in any paper. But it doesn't mean someone isn't going to talk about these numbers in some distant future. Why delete an article already written that isn't wrong or bothering anyone? Sometimes OEIS descriptions are hard to read for the common people, and an wikipedia article on the subject is typically easier to digest. Dhrm77 ( talk) 18:44, 30 October 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Dhrm77 Why delete an article already written that isn't wrong or bothering anyone? Because of WP:Notability: "Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable and independent sources to gauge this attention." (even if there is nothing technically wrong with the contents itself). PatrickR2 ( talk) 20:53, 30 October 2022 (UTC) reply
I was just trying to say that, even though it is not notable today, who is to say that in the future, a new fad about palindromic numbers is not going to start, making these notable. Then the article would have to be rewritten. That's double work and a complete waste of time. I would most likely not have written that article. But since it already exist, I would not be in favor or deleting it. Dhrm77 ( talk) 21:11, 30 October 2022 (UTC) reply
WP:CRYSTAL PatrickR2 ( talk) 03:12, 5 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete per lack of notability. PatrickR2 ( talk) 20:55, 30 October 2022 (UTC) reply
weak keep Has an OEIS entry with some discussion and also shows up in a 1989 paper of Richard Guy, ""Conway's RATS and other reversals" in American Mathematical Monthly which is a prominent math publication. Arguably this is enough to meet WP:RS since there are two reliable sources. JoshuaZ ( talk) 19:39, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete: An OEIS source and a 1089 paper does not advance notability for a stand alone article. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- Otr500 ( talk) 21:26, 2 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Merge to Palindromic number, where I think including a little content about this is on-topic and naturally fits in. Currently it has only a one-sentence mention there. Adumbrativus ( talk) 06:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Merge to Palindromic number where the subject matter might be relevant. Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 01:28, 5 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 01:03, 5 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Birdeye

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

I am using AFD as PROD is likely to be contested, and some of the references might be borderline on notability. References used are mostly routine coverage of the company - such as the company getting funding or launching a new feature. The company being featured in one of the awards didn't establish notability, as it is only mentioned in passing. In my opinion, this does not satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH and failed WP:GNG. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 00:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Internet, Software, and United States of America. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 00:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete plenty of links for the frozen food company with a similar name, this company has only PR sources. Oaktree b ( talk) 02:25, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:08, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete: Per Nom and user Oaktree b., promotional article with PR sourcing. -- Otr500 ( talk) 15:14, 2 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 01:04, 5 November 2022 (UTC) reply

AlphaSense

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:SIRS. Routine coverage, PR and press-release based refs. scope_creep^Talk 00:10, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete Per reasons by nominator ( scope creep). The article does not carry enough significance to be created. Timothytyy ( talk) 00:31, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New York. Shellwood ( talk) 08:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Comment A look at the references. Ref 1 to 5,7 is funding news. Ref 6 is a graphics that doesn't convey much information,

Ref 7 "Last week, AlphaSense announced that it had received an additional $50 million in funding" Funding news.
Ref 8 "AlphaSense Acquires Stream by Mosaic" links to [22] stating "Using AlphaSense’s market-leading AI search technology, Stream customers can now rapidly find key business insights within thousands of unique expert interviews, gaining new perspectives on companies across a breadth of industries". This is podcast as press-release. It fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIRS.
Ref 9 "AlphaSense Merges with Sentieo" Routine business news failing WP:CORPDEPTH.
Ref 10 "AlphaSense offers a financial search engine that helps analysts and portfolio managers find info that's buried in dense text documents, "whether the information is in page 200 of an SEC filing footnote, or a broker research report, a piece of news or conference transcript," says Jack Kokko, CEO of the vendor" A single paragraph they use its search engine technology to search for investment idea. Fails WP:SIRS. Not in-depth and no significant.
Ref 11 A three-line paragraph. Fails WP:SIRS. WP:CORPDEPTH. Single subject. Fails WP:ORGCRIT
Ref 12 A three-line paragraph with diagram copied from the website. Fails WP:SIRS, WP:CORPDEPTH. Fails WP:ORGCRIT

As a company its not notable. scope_creep^Talk 09:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete per source analysis above. I'm not seeing much else to use for GNG either. Oaktree b ( talk) 18:53, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep - What search engine are you using? I looked for three seconds on Firefox and found nice long significant coverage on TechCrunch. This is a billion dollar company. All sources are independent and reliable. Some are in-depth and yes some are also brief, but they are all important in the context of the article. You'll notice that everything is sourced. Few articles can say that. I'll find some more good sources and add them after I finish watching my team. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:16, 30 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Instead of trying to revert me, why not just not be abusive? TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete, User:Timtempleton, coverage of valuations, product launches, funding announcements etc, such as the TechCrunch article, are considered to be routine coverage per WP:CORPDEPTH, and as such do not contribute to notability. All coverage I could find from a search was of this nature. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 01:38, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment - I think we have a different interpretation of WP:NCORP. It specifically says "standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage" ... "of a capital transaction, such as raised capital". Unicorn funding status is not routine. We have an article about the most valuable unicorns, as well as an article about the term Unicorn (finance). It's not routine in this case, none of the coverage is a standard notice, and most of it is not brief. I know the difference after doing over 100 articles. So the situation described by WP:NCORP and used to disqualify the independent third party sources doesn't apply here. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:13, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment - more recent sources added, including an in-depth profile in Business Insider. [ [23]] TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:09, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete - Article fails both WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. I agree with Scope creep's analysis of the sources; what little coverage exists is of routine investing rather than anything substantial about the company itself, and the two recently added sources are an interview with the CEO followed by a trivial mention, neither of which affects notability. - Aoidh ( talk) 01:27, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete: Per Nom and assessment of sources. A source, like the business reporting of the Wall Street Jourtnal can be glanced at to tell if contains promotional material from a PR release. The first sentence of the source states: "AlphaSense Inc., a developer of advanced search tools for parsing financial data, said Wednesday". Fortune, Silicon Valley Business Journal, India Times, TechCrunch, Forbes, Business Insider, and others listing the news releases concerning IPO's or venture-capital funding, are insignificant sources for actual company information and are generally just routine coverage of such events that does not advance notability. -- Otr500 ( talk) 20:22, 2 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

Videos

Websites

Encyclopedia

Facebook