Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 30 November 01 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:49, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Haviland, Arizona

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

Appears to be a rail stop, and I got a few hits consistent with that, plus one person "from" there. Old enough topos show a couple of trackside buildings that could be anything; slightly more recent ones show a short siding. Nothing there now except rails and ties and ballast. Mangoe ( talk) 23:55, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per WP:V and WP:GEOLAND, no reliable sources cited for the claim this is a populated place, and there don't seem to be any. Hut 8.5 18:27, 3 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, I couldn't find sources that showed it's a populated place and so it fails WP:GEOLAND and I couldn't find sufficient sources for WP:GNG. Suonii180 ( talk) 13:38, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Here is all the information I could find on Haviland, hopefully this can help with a consensus. There is a rest stop named Haviland, but again, this does not mean it's populated; although I did find posts for land listed for sale in the Haviland category, so that could mean that people are trading land and maybe living on it in Haviland. This person did some trainspotting at Haviland, but I think he just used his GPS's location data to say where is was. Could you link the reference that said someone was from there? I couldn't find it. BhamBoi ( talk) 18:20, 7 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. G5. Whack a sock. If an established editor sees value in a redirect, this closure does not preclude that Star Mississippi 01:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC) reply

2012 Henryville tornado

2012 Henryville tornado (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is a near-exact copy of the section at Tornado outbreak of March 2–3, 2012 and is essentially a WP:CONTENTFORK. The creator of this article seems to be the same IP hopping user who has been making very similar edits across numerous IP addresses for months now. No reason exists to have a duplicate article on a tornado that already has copious information elsewhere (much of which is word for word the same). United States Man ( talk) 23:50, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Conditional Delete: The nominator is correct on this being a near-exact copy of the section at Tornado outbreak of March 2–3, 2012. That said, it is not a true exact copy with some (not much) new information. I would want this deleted unless the section in the main article was shortened some (not much) & at least 1/3 of the article is new information previously not from the section prior to article creator. If those could be met, then consider this a weak keep, but if those are not met by the end of this AfD, then consider this a delete. Elijahandskip ( talk) 00:08, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I'm not sure exactly which way to lean on this matter. Content-wise, there is more than would go in a section at an outbreak article, and this tornado, if I recall correctly, received much of the media attention from this outbreak. One editor did mention suspicions of sockpuppetry. If confirmed, this article could qualify for deletion under WP:G5. If this article is not kept, I would favor a redirect or merge instead of deletion since there is a suitable redirect target. TornadoLGS ( talk) 02:36, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Neutral I could see the tornado getting an article and it did get recognition from The Weather Channel's "Tornado Alley" show. Also, the tornado was immediately followed by another storm with extremely large hail as well as a second, albeit weak, tornado that hit the same areas. That being said, it can't be a direct copy of an already well written article section, which is why I'm going neutral. ChessEric ( talk · contribs) 03:14, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Indiana, and Kentucky. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 06:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Update: The editor who reverted United States Man’s bold blanking/redirect on notability and wanted the AfD was blocked as a potential sock. The editor (different IP user) who created the article was not blocked. Because of that, I think we need to let the AfD run its course since G5 doesn’t play a role here. (Pinging TornadoLGS as they mentioned the G5 pending SPI.) Elijahandskip ( talk) 13:54, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
170.24.150.113 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) is now editing in this same area ( Tornado outbreak of March 2–3, 2012) and is probably also a sock. 148.76.137.251 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) may be as well, since the user already seems to know about AfC, page attribution, and content forks upon joining. United States Man ( talk) 14:05, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
As is 71.125.36.50 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS). This may require another request at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Andrew5 @ Elijahandskip:. United States Man ( talk) 14:08, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
I heard about it from someone in my school, so I figured I'd bravely trim it. You seem to really be trying to make every IP who wants to save this article look like a sock perhaps to get it deleted. 170.24.150.113 ( talk) 14:20, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
If, indeed, you are a different person, the pattern of an IP-hopping editor, confirmed at SPI, is real. TornadoLGS ( talk) 20:20, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
That IP address is from the same place as a previously blocked sock address. If this is a different person then the sock is the one that told that person about the article (or it’s just the same person). United States Man ( talk) 20:37, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
This is a shared IP address, belonging to Plainview Old Bethpage John F. Kennedy High School. Over 2,000 people are here every day. 170.24.150.113 ( talk) 12:02, 2 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Issues should be fixed. Saw this at AFD as I was looking through this outbreak, and figured I’d pitch in. 108.58.9.194 ( talk) 19:39, 2 November 2022 (UTC) reply


  • Comment – This should now qualify as WP:G5 given the Andrew5 SPI here. The closing admin instead chose to semiprotect the page and is still allowing the sock to edit Wikipedia, however. United States Man ( talk) 04:02, 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. Joyous! | Talk 21:36, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Brian Joseph Friel

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

Little to no Significant Coverage; a Google news search for his name with verbatim results including middle name, and without middle name brings only his name in passing mention or another person named Brian Friel. Potentially a GNG fail. External links seem to essentially be WP:PROMO. InvadingInvader ( talk) 18:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Scotland. InvadingInvader ( talk) 18:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Andrew D. Armitage, ‎Dean Tudor (1976). Annual Index to Popular Music Record Reviews 1974. Scarecrow Press. p. 68. does have a listing for the album Second Hand Dealer with info on where to locate published reviews of the album; but unfortunately it's not available for viewing in google books other than snippet view which isn't helpful. It does indicate to me though, that reviews of this artist do exist, but they are likely either not online due to their age, or are behind a paywall. Hopefully some editors skilled in locating music reviews in the UK from the 1970s will participate in this discussion. On a side note, the artist is mostly known as Brian Friel without the middle name. I imagine this title was given to the wiki article because of the more prominent Irish playwright. Best. 4meter4 ( talk) 18:48, 10 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. World Radio History has several short reviews of his debut album in UK and US music industry magazines around 1974-75 - Record Mirror, Walrus! (and again later when the US version came out), Cash Box. The list of guest musicians is pretty impressive. Adam Sampson ( talk) 15:24, 11 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! 20:54, 17 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! 22:26, 24 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Not notable enough. There are thousands if not millions of artist and guitarist. Just because you're one doesn't mean you're notable. I've also seen the references. And there's not a single reliable cite that isn't only a passing mention. Ploreky Have a problem? 17:24, 28 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to hopefully garner more opinions on the status of this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Lacks in-depth coverage to meet WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:09, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete mostly per Ploreky. Even a newspapers.com search on the full name returns just 1 hit, though surely someone even a little notable would get more than that. Otherwise as per others that I can't see how this can pass WP:MUSICBIO. Bungle ( talk • contribs) 20:39, 7 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. JBW ( talk) 21:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC) reply

R.S. Yadav

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

WP:BLP of an academic administrator, not reliably sourced as passing our notability criteria for academics. The only notability claim in evidence here is that he's vice-chancellor of a university, which is not an automatic notability freebie in and of itself in the absence of a demonstrated pass of WP:GNG and/or WP:NACADEMIC -- but this just résumés a handful of jobs without demonstrating the significance of his work in any of them, and is referenced to a single short blurb announcing his appointment as vice-chancellor, which is not enough to get him over GNG all by itself if it's all the coverage he has.
As I'm not an expert in locating Indian sourcing, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody can find enough solid sourcing to improve the article, but nothing here is enough in its current state. Bearcat ( talk) 16:36, 10 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Haryana. Bearcat ( talk) 16:36, 10 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Vice-chancellor of a university, in the Indian system, is the person heading the whole university. (In contrast, chancellor is a purely ceremonial position.) So if Baba Mastnath University were a major university, it would pass WP:PROF#C6. But I am not convinced that Baba Mastnath is significant enough to count for that. — David Eppstein ( talk) 16:47, 10 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Given the state of the article, redirecting to Baba Mastnath University might work, where a couple of sentences note on the current VC would be appropriate. Espresso Addict ( talk) 02:02, 11 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Meets criteria #6 of WP:PROF as Vice Chancellor (i.e. top admin position) of an accredited university. Detailed information at WP:PROF says that publications of the institution where the post is held are considered a reliable source. s such they meet notability. Having said that, the page needs a lot of work. Gusfriend ( talk) 06:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC) reply
    C6 requires "a major academic institution", not merely an accredited one. — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:20, 11 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! 20:17, 17 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! 22:26, 24 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Comment I can't see anything on google about that Guy, all it shows is this bus station. But if I'll vote, it would be Soft Delete. Ploreky Have a problem? 17:26, 28 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Soft Deletion is not a possible option here. Liz Read! Talk! 06:48, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Thanks for telling me Ploreky Have a problem? 08:29, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to consider whether a redirect is preferable to keeping this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 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. Joyous! | Talk 06:22, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Jack Pizzey (broadcaster)

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

I'm not sure that this broadcaster is notable. I don't see that he meets WP:FILMMAKER or WP:GNG. I have carried out WP:BEFORE and added three references, plus one from a commented-out section of the article. However two of those are passing references and the other two depend on interviews with Pizzey himself. The article previously had two references, of which one is now a deadlink and the other discusses Pizzey as the husband of Erin Pizzey. Am wondering if his documentary, Sweat of the Sun, Tears of the Moon (currently a redirect to the article on him), which won a Logie Award, is notable but he is not. Article has been tagged as needing more citations since 2014. This is not the same person as Jack Pizzey, Premier of Queensland. Tacyarg ( talk) 19:46, 17 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! 22:01, 24 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! 23:16, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep As per Piecesofuk. But I agree that the article needs improvement. Fifthapril ( talk) 03:37, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. Agree with PatGallacher, Piecesofuk, Fifthapril. I'll look to improve the article. Cabrils ( talk) 23:02, 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 redirect to Marquess of Downshire. Liz Read! Talk! 07:00, 2 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Nicholas Hill, 9th Marquess of Downshire

Nicholas Hill, 9th Marquess of Downshire (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

British nobleman, fails WP:BIO: I found very little coverage in reliable sources for "Nicholas Hill", "Marquess of Downshire", and "Nick Downshire", and the little I found was passing mentions. British nobles aren't inherently notable. He also never sat in the House of Lords, so he cannot qualify for WP:NPOL either.

My source assessment follows:

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
"Animalcare Group plc Board Details".. Retrieved 1 August 2015. No Standard bio from an org where the subject of the article used to be a director. [1] No ✘ No
"The Most Hon the Marquess of Downshire". Debrett's Retrieved 1 April 2013. No Only namechecked ✘ No
Rob Evans, Grouse moors owners threatened government with legal action Ruffer co-founder steps down, The Guardian, 20 February 2020 No Passing mention ✘ No
[ People: Bolser; James Heal; Womble Bond Dickinson; and more], The Business Desk, 4 May 2022 No Passing mention ✘ No
Grace Newton, Clifton Castle: Privately owned stately home in the Yorkshire Dales to open its gardens to the public this weekend, The Yorkshire Post, 10 June 2022 No Passing mention ✘ No
Christopher Woodhouse, New wardens appointed for Hillsborough Fort, Belfast Telegraph, 31 July 2021 No Passing mention ✘ No
Arthur Francis Nicholas Wills Ian Hill, 9th Marquess of Downshire1, thepeerage.com No Deprecated self-published peerage website. ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}.

Pilaz ( talk) 21:00, 24 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! 23:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect Marquess of Downshire, I couldn't find sources that makes the subject pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 ( talk) 23:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect as above. Completely non-notable individual. TheLongTone ( talk) 14:52, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:31, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Gentle Fund Organization

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

Last AfD was 12 years ago with low participation. This still fails WP:ORG for lack of significant coverage. LibStar ( talk) 21:57, 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 deleted as G5. (non-admin closure) —   HELLKNOWZ ∣  TALK 10:18, 4 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Mister Mummy

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

Fails to meet GNG Patr2016 ( talk) 21:42, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete lacks WP:SIGCOV as references are generally just a few sentences about the trailer coming out. Does not meet WP:NFILM nor arguably WP:NFF also. LizardJr8 ( talk) 22:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: We can't find any news as it is an upcoming movie so I think that we have to wait for 11 November 2022 because I think that on that day new news article will be published which can make it notable film. Contributor008 ( talk) 09:02, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Temporary keep or draftify and lets see what press does this film get after 11 November. Insight 3 ( talk) 14:36, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Draftify:Draftify it now and then send it to Wikipedia:Articles for creation when it will release. Contributor008 ( talk) 15:28, 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! 22:31, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply

2008 Cyprus Four Nations Football Tournament

2008 Cyprus Four Nations Football Tournament (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Following the deletion of 1998 Cyprus International Tournament ( AfD), I intended to bring this here but never got around to it. My concerns are that this friendly tournament doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSEVENT. Also worth noting that WP:NOTDATABASE states that merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Also GNG states that a topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. EU Football is a stats database with low standards for inclusion and the other cited source 4 nations appears to relate to a totally different tournament. I am not seeing anything in cursory searches to indicate that this topic received detailed media coverage. Given the clear consensus to delete the 1998 article, I'm not seeing any reason as to why this one should be any different and the WP:BURDEN should be on those wishing to have a stand-alone article to provide evidence of why this topic needs one.

If anyone finds multiple examples of detailed reliable media coverage in any language, I will happily withdraw this AfD. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:40, 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! 22:30, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Aquaphor water filters

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

Non-notable business. Sources cited are just routine business reporting, and a search finds only more of the same and the usual social media and directory listings, etc. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ORGCRIT. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 21:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, and Estonia. DoubleGrazing ( talk) 21:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. I wrote a comment at Talk:Aquaphor water filters. The current refs are routine and fail WP:CORPDEPTH, though this slightly longer but is still press release like, chiefly quotes, and might still be trivial per CORPDEPTH. Further, a company's notability isn't inherited from reviews for its product. Per WP:PRODUCTREV: Reviews that narrowly focus on a particular product or function without broader context (e.g. review of a particular meal without description of the restaurant as a whole) do not count as significant sources, this is the case here. My WP:BEFORE search found lots of pieces on Google News, but they seem to be press releases/routine announcements or reviews about its products that also fail WP:CORPDEPTH, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Therefore, this fails WP:NCORP. VickKiang (talk) 21:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Per VickKiang, who raised many of the same points as I would have, so there's no need to repeat those same points. I looked for additional sourcing and could find nothing of substance, and the sourcing currently in the article is insufficient. Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. - Aoidh ( talk) 02:11, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above, and as a run of the mill business. Bearian ( talk) 02:19, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails WP:CORPDEPTH Devoke water 20:06, 7 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. Joyous! | Talk 21:51, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply

BeyondSims

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

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 24#BeyondSims. Pinging people involved in RfD: A7V2, Pizzaplayer219, Mdewman6, and Jay. Clyde! Franklin! 21:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: I don’t really have any experience in AFD but looking at the article, there are only about two reliable sources, while the other sources rely on primary sourcing. Pizzaplayer219 Talk Contribs 21:04, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Video games, and Websites. Skynxnex ( talk) 21:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete weakly sourced fancruft. LizardJr8 ( talk) 22:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - A routine fansite that fails WP:GNG. The GamesRader piece is a somewhat trivial mention of a past incarnation of the website, but even if it was extremely in-depth, it by itself certainly is not enough to establish notability. - Aoidh ( talk) 02:34, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Belated ping with apologies to IceWelder, who WP:BLARed this. —  Clyde! Franklin! 07:07, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    Thanks for the ping! The BLAR might have happened five years ago but the sourcing situation remains unchanged. WP:CSE only returns three hits of this site being mentioned trivially. Incidentally, all three even refer to the same event. Hence, I would also support Delete. IceWelder [ ✉] 08:16, 7 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. Later comments found some relevant mentions in outside sources, indicating that this cuisine is "a thing." Joyous! | Talk 14:51, 8 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Sylheti cuisine

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

WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. None of the sources in this article point towards a distinct Sylheti cusine; rather they talk about certain dishes which originate from the Sylhet district or happen to be popularly eaten in Sylhet. There is no source which mentions Sylheti cuisine to be notable in its own right. The article is also poorly written, and mentions unrelated content such as pop culture and information about nutrition. This article should be deleted. UserNumber ( talk) 20:33, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. UserNumber ( talk) 20:33, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 October 31. UserNumber ( talk) 20:33, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: The article is also similar to the Chittagonian cuisine article which was deleted for the same reasons which I highlighted. Perhaps @ Alexandermcnabb: and @ SnowFire: can take a look at this too. UserNumber ( talk) 20:37, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Procedural comment. UserNumber, if you're going to ping people in a previous AFD, please either ping all participants or none of them - you've currently only pinged "delete" voters which can create some WP:CANVASS concerns. I'll ping them here now so no need to do this yourself, but something to remember for future AFDs. @ UserNumber, Piotrus, Vinegarymass911, Valereee, Mehediabedin, and Spudlace: SnowFire ( talk) 20:54, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I'm less sure about this one. The article needs substantial rewriting to be less promotional, but that's a cleanup matter rather than an AFD one. The Guardian article suggests a book discusses it even if it is talking about cooks from Sylhet rather than Sylheti cuisine necessarily (just as there's no guarantee that every Italian cooks Italian food, not all Sylheti cooks cook Sylheti food, right?). However, "The Statesman" directly says "The reason being a reasonable percentage of the restaurants in Brick Lane are run by Bangladeshis from Sylhet, whose spoken words and culinary preferences differ from the rest of the Bangladeshis." If true, that means that Sylheti cuisine really is different from Bangladeshi cuisine in general. And while greatcurryrecipes.com doesn't appear to be a super-high quality site, it is discussing a dish called "Sylheti beef", which is a promising sign that this really is a cuisine type. Haven't exhaustively checked all the references, but it looks like this article might be salvageable. SnowFire ( talk) 21:05, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I am in complete agreement with SnowFire... There are a lot of references online, although RS are, at least on the surface, scant. Transactions in Taste: The Collaborative Lives of Everyday Bengali Food is, however, a nice, neat reference ( this one is a blog and so isn't, which is a shame) and there's enough bouncing around out there, including websites for 'Sylheti Bangladeshi' restaurants in the UK to convince me that this is a thing. However, the article itself is a mess of unsourced OR - but then, altogether now, AfD isn't cleanup. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 04:02, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    • @ Alexandermcnabb: The vast majority of those restaurants serve Indian food, and even advertise as such. It is merely just owned by Sylheti Bangladeshi businessmen. UserNumber ( talk) 14:10, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
      I'm not going to get deep into it, because it's sort of irrelevant and NOT RS, but here's a review of an 'authentic Sylheti restaurant' in London - one of a number in Brick Lane - selling easily identifiable and uniquely Sylheti dishes. This, BTW, IS an RS outlet talking Sylheti food. I think, in short, we have 'a thing' and it is a notable thing, at that. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 14:58, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Since I was pinged. One mention of the term in GScholar. Several in GBooks. Borderline, I'll not vote for now. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete No any reliable source. If there is please ping me. Kasar Wuya ( talk) 10:24, 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 no consensus. JBW ( talk) 21:16, 5 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Caballero Universal

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

Fails WP:GNG, with only one reliable source and no other clear sources online. JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs) 06:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Through a quick search, I found several other sources in Spanish about the pageant: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] While some of them are passing mentions, especifically about Spain's candidate Pablo Estrada, there seems to be more coverage than suggested. -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 09:22, 10 October 2022 (UTC) reply
    Thank you for finding these sources. The last one is a tourism office, not sure if that is reliable, whilst source one is largely an interview. I can't access source four due to an ad blocker that I can't be bothered to disable, and two and three just don't pass WP:SIGCOV. JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs) 09:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:48, 17 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep per my previous comment, as it seems that the article meets WP:GNG by a small margin. I think this is even more understandable given how recent the contest is, although on the other hand this could mean a case of WP:TOOSOON. If other editors agree that the page does not meet the threshold, the article can be deleted. -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 12:44, 19 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:10, 24 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:34, 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! 08:43, 4 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Someday (2021 film)

Someday (2021 film) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:NFILM as no reviews found. All current citations are about the director and not the actual film. Notability isn't inherited.

PROD removed with "Restore per WP:GNG. AfD it if you like" DonaldD23 talk to me 12:46, 17 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:46, 17 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per GNG. The film's history, including its premiere at international film festivals, story, and information about its direction, are all available online. Plenty of sources exist. Shahid • Talk2me 13:03, 17 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Provide three, then... Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 14:05, 17 October 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Alexandermcnabb: They're cited in the article. Shahid • Talk2me 15:08, 17 October 2022 (UTC) reply
They're really not. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 16:31, 17 October 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Alexandermcnabb: see References section please. All reliable sources and not just passing mentions. Shahid • Talk2me 17:27, 17 October 2022 (UTC) reply
As stated in the AfD nomination...these are all about the director and not the film itself. We need reviews. DonaldD23 talk to me 18:25, 17 October 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Alexandermcnabb: No, they're about the film, otherwise I wouldn't know what the film is about. Reviews are important for WP:NFLIM, but this article has WP:GNG going for it. Shahid • Talk2me 19:12, 17 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Bad film title for SEO - there are any number of 'Somedays' out there dating back to 1935. Many are notable. This one - a short - isn't. Screening at an international film festival most certainly isn't notability - we are guided by WP:GNG and WP:NFILM, neither of which this film passes. Not today, not someday, not anyday. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 14:05, 17 October 2022 (UTC) reply
    This is the first time I see such reasoning, namely the film's title is problematic. We are guided by WP:GNG and that's why the article is notable. Shahid • Talk2me 15:11, 17 October 2022 (UTC) reply
    While the title complaint observation or WP:SEO is a bit strange, IMHO Alexandermcnabb raises IMHO a valid point that the film festivals are minor, which you fail to address. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 05:26, 18 October 2022 (UTC) reply
    It was merely an observation rather than a complaint... there are a number of other films called 'Someday', so that's a strange choice for a film title in today's world. Purely observation, by no means an assertion that in someway this violates WP policy or standards. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 05:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Alexandermcnabb: Yeah, I agree. Going to go off-topic here about my subjective POV- the film's title is mundane and dull, and my BEFORE search found lots of films with the same title, making searching difficult, so I get what you are saying (has to add 2021 short/2021 film) ... of course this has nothing to do with AfDs and I can see someone mistaking that as part of a rationale but indeed an interesting observation. VickKiang (talk) 05:34, 18 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Appears to be adequately sourced and meet guidelines.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:32, 17 October 2022 (UTC) reply
    All citations are about the director and not the film. How is that adequately sourced? DonaldD23 talk to me 18:26, 17 October 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Donaldd23: Ref no. 6: "Shefali Shah's directorial debut Someday to be screened at the 18th Indian Film Festival Stuttgart" - it's about the film. Obviously when sources provide information about films, their director is mentioned because they are the presentor of their work. Shahid • Talk2me 19:15, 17 October 2022 (UTC) reply

*Delete per nom. Sourcing on the director is insufficient, ref 6 is a routine announcement, only describing the official logline (sorry, but that's what the ref says) and then a quote by Shah. Then this ref- a minor announcement on a film festival selection, nowhere near passing WP:NFILM's major award criteria, and then a plot overview (possibly an analysis but nowhere near SIGCOV). Per WP:GNG, Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources. IMHO this falls into announcements columns, though it's perfectly reasonable if you disagree. My WP:BEFORE search found this, a similar routine story with almost the same quotes. Shshshsh, we've disagreed in the past, I appreciate your efforts in content creation and saving articles from AfD, and apologies that I have to vote delete for an article you created, if you could demonstrate more refs please add them here, but any more comments without adding refs probably won't persuade me to change my vote, so let's respectfully disagree. (Another minor note: I've procedurally marked this as reviewed still during NPP as it's already in AfD, but that doesn't reflect that I would like to keep the article). Many thanks! Update: Two editors have been stating that Cinestaan is RS. IMO it's debatable that it's a reliable source, but it definitely passes the independent, secondary, and significant coverage requirements. Therefore, generously there is one source counting towards GNG or NFILM criteria 1. IMHO the new sources added, 1, 2, 3, still mainly cover the plot, information on the director, and general info on the award. However, some editors could reasonably view some of these new pieces as meeting WP:SIGCOV. Therefore, I'm at Weak Delete to Neutral. VickKiang (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2022 (UTC) reply

  • @ VickKiang: It's not a minor announcement actually - the article provides both an announcement and infomration about the film. It's a substantial article. But we're not going to see eye the eye so let's save ourselves the time to argue. Shahid • Talk2me 07:48, 18 October 2022 (UTC) reply
    Agree with your last sentence- let's respectfully disagree and thanks! VickKiang (talk) 07:51, 18 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:08, 24 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist. Opinion seems evenly split on whether or not this film can be considered notable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:30, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. This just barely scrapes by for me. But with the new source, I think it meets our criteria. -- Mike  🗩 18:10, 2 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Notable enough with sufficient RS coverage. Krimuk2.0 ( talk) 10:03, 3 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. New sources indicate enough notability to meet criteria here. Joyous! | Talk 20:57, 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 keep Although there's merit to QuietHere's merger comment, it doesn't appear that consensus is going to form at this time. This does not preclude a future discussion as to whether it makes sense to cover Bartholomew within the work for which he's primarily notable. Star Mississippi 01:40, 8 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Joshua Bartholomew

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

Does not appear to be notable beyond his writing credit on " Everything Is Awesome". The rest of the coverage in the article is either from sources I wouldn't guarantee to be reliable (such as a non-notable local paper from Alliston, Ontario), isn't actually about him (such as the Deadline article on the cancelled TV pilot that doesn't mention his name at all), or is just blatantly unreliable like Ron Sexsmith's own website. Several sources are dead though findable through the Web Archive but even all those didn't add much promise to this article, and I couldn't find any additional coverage either. QuietHere ( talk) 09:59, 24 October 2022 (UTC) reply

See also the AfDs on the duo he's in and the other half of that duo. QuietHere ( talk) 10:04, 24 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! 19:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep I think he just meets GNG, there's also this non-trivial piece by the Canadian Press in the Toronto Star [7] about his Grammy nomination. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:09, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I think the Toronto Star piece above pushes it over the edge. Nfitz ( talk) 23:56, 5 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with Everything is Awesome. This is a WP:BLP with a lot of unsourced personal information, as well as information sourced to a promotional packet from the artist's website that's no longer online ( [8]), information sourced to an internet forum that is no longer online (and not archived), and a whole lot of coverage of Everything is Awesome which mentions the artist in passing or not at all. I think nearly all the personal info needs to be removed for failing WP:BLP (it's probably accurate, but not verifiable). The creator and primary author of this page, User:Halle Leah, may have a COI—almost all of their edits have been on topics related to this artist, his partner, and their collaborative moniker specifically (as well as a couple other musicians); I suspect there's UPE here and that this page was created by a publicist (the original AfD here appears to have been closed with the conversation mostly centering around WP:BITE instead of the actual notability of the page). Notability seems borderline; he's definitely significantly covered in reliable independent sources, but only two of them, both about the same event. Per WP:COMPOSER, Where possible, composers or lyricists with insufficient verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article should be merged into the article about their work. Dylnuge ( Talk • Edits) 01:36, 6 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Seems to scrape in, thanks to the Toronto Star coverage. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:04, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply
I wouldn't be surprised if this closes as keep given the number of votes, but I'd like to clearly state my support for Dylnuge's merge option. The Toronto Star piece is an interview which is always hazy (see WP:INTERVIEW), and most of the material in it is regarding Everything is Awesome anyway so it'd be more useful for that page. The CBC piece that Beccaynr linked would be more useful to this page, but it's also awkward because of being interview-based writing. I just think the merge would be safer, and it would preserve what good material there is while dumping the unverifiable/primary-sourced parts which need chopped off anyway. QuietHere ( talk) 09:21, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Per WP:BASIC, Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject. However, when there is secondary context or commentary in addition to an interview, this can be used to support notability for a BLP. And there does not appear to be a place to put a biography of this subject in the Everything is Awesome article that would be WP:DUE, because there appears to be sufficient verifiable career information per WP:COMPOSER, unrelated to the song. Beccaynr ( talk) 14:17, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply
I generally agree with this read (though I disagree on the ultimate action to take, I don't disagree with anyone else's policy-based arguments for keeping the article; notability is maybe debatable here but I don't think it's a clear fail, and no one is using the primary sources to argue notability). I'll just add that there are some more stringent guidelines on primary sourcing BLP info, specifically WP:BLPSELFPUB, where it stipulates the article is not based primarily on such sources. Honestly I think this one is borderline and it's probably fine to keep it around, but uncited and poorly sourced BLP stuff always gives me a bit of pause. Dylnuge ( Talk • Edits) 19:31, 7 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. Policy based input indicates there isn't sufficient coverage Star Mississippi 01:42, 8 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Daily Talib

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

Lacks significant coverage with independent content. The citations added are not reliable. Fails to meet WP:NCORP Deletionlist ( talk) 13:37, 9 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Strongly Keep All refrences are from Gov and verified sources , so strongly keep this article , and also the auction was mad from the new user talk the user is new regestired user and just deleting the pages without any information

Daily talib is a regesterd News Papaer in Pakistan , so there is no way to delete this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsadnanhere ( talk • contribs) 19:00, 15 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Comment - Found 2 sources:
  1. Hum News
  2. Jounalism Pakistan

The point to consider is that it's almost impossible for a newspaper to get direct significant coverage in other rival newspapers, so notability for a newspaper should be evaluated under separate criteria. Insight 3 ( talk) 07:24, 16 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:15, 16 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • STRONG KEEP This article now has 3 SOLID references. Have fixed and updated all 3 archived references – one of them is from the Government of Pakistan, Audit Bureau of Circulation. Ngrewal1 ( talk) 23:50, 17 October 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Ngrewal1, The government archive link does not have the subject's name mentioned in their list. - 2409:4071:4E1A:83B7:E06:B440:CD4B:4F8E ( talk) 15:19, 18 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: I've reviewed the latest and all the other archives for the government reference link, and was not able to find the newspaper's name in the list. The other sources are not reliable, and the Hum News link looks promotional/paid. I request the admin make a decision based on facts, not the vote count. The links mentioned here are unreliable, and the facts can't be verified. The subject's website is also based on a WordPress template with random news articles from over a few months. The subject (Newspaper) claims to be having continuous publishing for over 17 years and has no reference/mentions about them on the web other than a few paid articles. - 2409:4071:4E1A:83B7:E06:B440:CD4B:4F8E ( talk) 15:19, 18 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Reply This is exactly why I tried to be THOROUGH and even gave the (Scroll down on the List for Talib (Urdu) newspaper Serial No. 741 entry). It does not say 'Daily Talib', but says 'Talib (Urdu)' newspaper. We can knit pick all we want because, for some reason, some of us are trying desperately to get this article deleted. Let us see the proof here that the references are 'paid' instead of throwing accusations around all over the place. The 'Closing Person' of this article will surely see what I am talking about. Ngrewal1 ( talk) 15:48, 18 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Correct , in Pakistan The News Paper Name is Talib , in Urdu Language it,s called , Roznama Talib , and in English Words , Called Daily Talib , as This is Daily News Paper , Itsadnanhere ( talk) 20:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC) reply
No Need for the Web sources , as this is not website , this is Newspaper , for news paper only one Gov Rerfrence link is enough :) Itsadnanhere ( talk) 20:21, 18 October 2022 (UTC) reply
The facts can't be verified from the Government link alone. The other two references are from public directories; anyone can add their listing on these sites.
Also, something to note: If you search about the editor and their other persons' names mentioned in the Wikipedia article on Google, you can see that digital marketeers run it, and you will find several PR articles about them, and the newspaper which they claim is owned by them.
Here are some of the links that I found on the web.
  • Articles about the Editor-in-Chief/Digital Marketeer
https://www.latestly.com/world/successful-pakistani-entrepreneur-nasir-shah-wani-urdu-live-pakistan-e-group-and-chief-editor-of-talib-tells-how-:::he-became-a-multi-millionaire-2601478.html
https://www.pktribune.com/nasir-shah-wani-shares-his-story-of-making-million-dollar-company-through-urdu-live-pakistan-e-group.html
https://www.google.com/search?q=Nasir+Shah+Wani
  • PR article about the Newspaper
https://theprint.in/theprint-valuead-initiative/media-group-daily-talib-goes-international-will-cater-readers-in-3-major-languages/906679/
I feel this might be a defunct newspaper that stopped publication long back. A few marketers from Pakistan are trying to impersonate the original brand and want to get a Wikipedia page for some benefits.
This is concerning and such incidents are on the rise on Wikipedia. Plus, having a newspaper alone does not indicate that it is notable.
Wikipedia user Itsadnanhere has created two such articles in total, out of which one got deleted in an AFD recently, please refer Burj News, and what concerns me is that 'Muhammad Iftikhar,' in the article says is the main admin, and in the infobox, it says he's the editor, the same 'Muhammad Iftikhar' was the founder of the recently deleted Burj News. I believe Itsadnanhere has COI with these subjects/individuals.
I request the admin to review all the points mentioned above. In the future, anyone can misuse a gov link of a defunct website/newspaper listing and claim that they run it by manipulating the web using PR/paid articles, and this alone doesn't make them notable.
My logical thinking is that a media outlet or a newspaper that has been operating for 17 years continuously (as the article claims) should have some form of online presence or media mentions, but here there is none. The only pieces you would find are from 2021; they are either direct PR or indirect (like Hum News).
Hum News and other articles about the newspaper or the persons related to it have their PR stories written in a promotional format. A similar writing style can be seen in the Hum News article, which is why I believe it might be an indirect PR article. (with no disclaimer or such) - 2409:4071:4E15:CADE:EC3D:86DD:1B2:D3D9 ( talk) 23:37, 18 October 2022 (UTC) reply
No need for your Attention and advise ,
if an admin need to see the official documents all documents are avalible for the transfering of this newspaper to the current CEO Nasir Shah Wani , the PR link you have provided you is about CEO not for the newspaper Itsadnanhere ( talk) 11:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC) reply
and by the way you are an indian user , and you don,t know about the newspaper criteria in pakistan , so leave these decission on Pakistani Administrative , and Wikipedia pakistani users Itsadnanhere ( talk) 11:29, 19 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Please be respectful here, it is a discussion, and I'm just trying to add my thoughts. We are not against you or the media outlet; people and organizations depend on the information found on Wikipedia. I'm just making sure everything is factual. And one more thing: Are you affiliated with the media outlet? Or the previous AFD article? How can you show the official documents to the Wikipedia admin? Please clarify. - 2409:4071:2084:BD46:E4C6:21FA:B73D:7F91 ( talk) 15:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC) reply
if you are expert you can see the official documents on the gov website , about the newspaper certification , and documentation , unfortunately the official documents are not able to see from outside the pakistan , and i am not affiliated with the media outlet , i just know about this news paper , becase it is located in my country and city , thanks Itsadnanhere ( talk) 09:27, 20 October 2022 (UTC) reply
check the gov link of this newspaper circulation
https://abc.gov.pk/Detail/NTZiMzk1ZTgtZDgyMS00YzdhLThmODAtNTg0MTkyNmJmODdj
if you are not able to access this link , try to open via proxy and use pakistan ip Itsadnanhere ( talk) 09:33, 20 October 2022 (UTC) reply
This is the same gov link we discussed in the above discussion, and the facts can't be verified from this link alone, and the name is generic. Anyway, let's now leave it all to the admin to decide. 122.171.18.15 ( talk) 11:25, 20 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Anyone can discuss the article, from Pakistan or elsewhere. That's how English wikipedia works. Oaktree b ( talk) 13:03, 24 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as per Insight3, in Pakistan media groups don't cover each other significantly and it's very rare. So whatever sources we have are enough for its notability. Muneebll ( talk) 14:55, 20 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:43, 24 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete no RS, most are trivial mentions, the ABC is simply auditing their circulation, so is nothing more than a list. Rest are non-useful. Oaktree b ( talk) 13:01, 24 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep already mentioned that in Pakistan media groups don't cover each other significantily

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:13, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep already mentioned that in Pakistan media groups don't cover each other significantily — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.183.157.120 ( talk) 07:04, 3 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails GNG. The subject lacks secondary & primay sources. There are no mentions about the newspaper, and It doesn't look notable. Tatupiplu' talk 08:37, 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. If an editor wishes to undertake merging, the page can be undeleted and redirected. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 03:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Lune (1799 ship)

Lune (1799 ship) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of any notability, a run-of-the-mill whaling ship without any noteworthy history. Fram ( talk) 12:24, 24 October 2022 (UTC) reply

*Redirect to Whaling in the United Kingdom as an alternative to deletion. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk) 18:44, 25 October 2022 (UTC) Merge appropriate detail, with refs, into Lune (ship). 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk) 03:47, 27 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Not a valid target, as there is no mention of the subject there. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 19:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC) reply
It is mentioned at Lune (ship). Do you have any reason to oppose merging or redirecting there? 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk) 19:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Merging into disambiguation pages is not appropriate. Disambiguations are not for everything by a certain name, just the notable examples. Wikipedia:Disambiguation dos and don'ts says Don't include entries without a blue link. It doesn't get more clear than that. What you are suggesting flies in the face of policy. I'm disappointed that I have to explain basics of policy to editors who should really know better. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 19:37, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Okay, so why not redirect instead of merge? (I did mention both as options) 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk) 19:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Trainsandotherthings - Don't be disappointed with others if you don't understand the difference between WP:DAB and WP:SETINDEX. (later) Davidships ( talk) 13:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Can I be disappointed that you don't know how to sign your comments? (I didn't get that ping, because you didn't sign you comment). Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 13:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Wrong. I do know it very well - but just that once forgot (and now rectified). No harm done. Davidships ( talk) 13:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider Merge option
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:11, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete or at worst merge to Lune (ship), which would consist merely of adding references from this article. The sources are certainly RS, but the ship itself is utterly NN, so that I cannot recommend any kind of retention.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 07:04, 2 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Hong Kong Ghost Stories

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

Possible a non-notable film. No third-party coverage of film. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 16:52, 24 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Asia, and Hong Kong. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 16:52, 24 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: There is a review in the South China Morning Post here, a review in The New Paper and a review in The Straits Times. There is some coverage here. Somebodyidkfkdt ( talk) 14:39, 26 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep. The South China Morning Post is RS per WP:RSP, The Straits Times is situational, but there is consensus that it is generally reliable so long as the Singapore government is not involved in its coverage. As the Singapore government wouldn't be involved in a film review, IMHO this is also a RS in this context. The New Paper is a tabloid and I'm uncertain of whether it counts as a WP:RS, but with two newspapers IMO this borderline passes WP:GNG and also possibly passes WP:NFILM's first criteria- The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics as SCMP and The Straits Tiems are well-known national ones, these critics might be nationally known. VickKiang (talk) 21:15, 27 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! 19:03, 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! 07:04, 2 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Shauna Parsons

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

None of the sources are SIGCOV in RS. She fails the WP:GNG. PROD declined in 2010. Note that, as is typical in this field, the mentioned Emmy is a regional Emmy that does not confer notability. Sammi Brie (she/her •  t • c) 17:54, 24 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! 19:02, 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 draftify. There is a reasonable case that the pages do not resemble articles, and there are doubts as to whether the pages are actually being worked on. However, a reasonable case can be made that major state laws might be notable, and the pages in question are also quite new, so seeing if anyone will work on them in draft space is also a reasonable option, and this option has the most support here.

As per WP:ATD-I, draft space pages may be speedy deleted as abandoned after six months if no progress is made on them, although even that doesn't preclude a fresh start. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:13, 8 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Texas Agriculture Code

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

Statutory laws that aren't notable on their own and might be better condensed into a list like as what's been done at California Codes, such as in Law of Texas or Texas Codes.

Within this nomination, I am additionally nominating the following articles for deletion:

  • "Vernon's Texas Statutes and Codes Annotated" is a (very large multi-volume) book. It is not a database. It contains significant commentary on each of the 27 codes. There are plenty of other sources. James500 ( talk) 00:45, 27 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify - some might be notable enough to be fleshed out. Onel5969 TT me 00:13, 25 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment @ WaddlesJP13:, I think you forgot to do step IV in WP:MULTIAFD when you nominated this list, as only Texas Agriculture Code has the AFD banner at the top. A great many of the others have since been draftified or proposed via the PROD process by reviewers who seem to be unaware that they are being discussed in this AFD. ~ ONUnicorn( Talk| Contribs) problem solving 16:06, 25 October 2022 (UTC) reply
@ ONUnicorn: I did forget to add the AFD banners to those pages, but it looks like they've been draftified by MaxnaCarta, who I discussed these pages and this AFD with over Discord. Waddles  🗩  🖉 17:25, 25 October 2022 (UTC) reply
@ WaddlesJP13: yep. I also support a draftify all of these articles. Can’t hurt to get a consensus in case someone tries to undo all my drafting. They need to be incubated. As a member of the law project I am happy to see articles on statues however analysis is required not merely a stub rehash of the statute. The statute must still be meet GNG. Otherwise we’d become a database of statutes. There’s approximately 500,000 statutes in USA alone. World wide theres probably more statutes than we currently have Wikipedia articles. Not all of them can have an article for obvious reasons. MaxnaCarta ( talk) 19:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC) reply
There are not 500,000 codes in the USA, or anything close to that. The overwhelming majority of statutes are not codes. There are 27 codes in Texas. The total number of codes in the USA is more likely to be on the order of a thousand. And the number of legal encyclopedias, treatises and other books and periodicals is overwhelmingly larger. James500 ( talk) 00:45, 27 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • WP:NOTTEXTBOOK and this is textbook law. If it is civil law, then redirect to the appropriate code book. Atsme 💬 📧 18:59, 26 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This nomination is a proposal to delete something close to half of the entire law of Texas (population: 29 million). The 27 codes constitute most of the statute law of Texas. Each of these codes satisfies GNG easily and by a very wide margin. Every book and periodical article on the law of Texas contains extensive coverage of these codes. For the avoidance of doubt, these codes are cited by many abbreviations (eg Vernon's Tex . . . , Tex Code Ann, Tex Codes Ann, Tex Stat Ann, Tex Rev Stat Ann, Tex Civ Stat Ann, Tex Rev Civ Stat Ann, Tex Civ Proc, Tex R Civ Proc, and many more). These articles do not meet criteria 2 or 3 of the draftification criteria (WP:DRAFTIFY) and should not be draftified. James500 ( talk) 00:45, 27 October 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ James500 Have you reviewed the actual current text of these articles? ~ ONUnicorn( Talk| Contribs) problem solving 15:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all While prose descriptions of state codes with independent coverage may be notable, there are merely tables of contents naming the titles and subtitles and are not appropriate encyclopedic content. It's also generally better to have topical articles like those listed at Law_of_Texas#Topics that describe real-world applications rather than pages for individual sections of the law's text itself. James500's "delete something close to half of the entire law of Texas" is quite the hyperbole when, again, this isn't about the law of Texas but rather just the names of its sections. Reywas92 Talk 20:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • These articles are about the law of Texas. They are not about the "names" of its "sections". While codes have sections, the law of Texas does not have "sections". The codes are themselves are separate pieces of legislation, and are not merely "names". It is pseudolaw to describe these codes as "the names of sections". (That line of argument sounds very similar to the strawman theory. Claiming that the article Texas Code Of Criminal Procedure is about the name of the code, and is not about the code itself, is like claiming that the article George Washington is about the name "George Washington", and is not about the man who was president.) The see also section Law of Texas#Topics is unreferenced, appears to be WP:OR, and is indiscriminately listed in random order. I could understand a desire to, for example, move Texas Code Of Criminal Procedure to Criminal procedure in Texas, but such an article would be wholly or primarily about the code (eg the law of criminal procedure generally consists of the code and cases on the interpretation of the code), the scope of such an article would have to be determined by the scope of the code (there being no other practical way to WP:SPLIT the article Law of Texas), and such an article would have to include most or all of the material already included in these articles. Per WP:ATD, an article should not be deleted merely because it could be, or ought to be, moved to a new page name. The law of Texas consists of legislation and cases. If these articles are deleted, then we are deleting most of the legislation (which is not covered in other Wikipedia articles). And since many of the cases are about the interpretation of the codes, we would be excluding those as well. That would exclude something close to most of the laws of Texas. These articles are not "merely tables of contents". The introductory sections of these articles are not "tables of contents". They are perfectly appropriate descriptions of the codes. All of the text of these articles is written in prose. (They contain no verse or poetry). A list of the titles included in the codes is an appropriate starting point (ie it is good enough for a stub) for summarising the contents of these codes, and is appropriate encyclopedic content, since the lists are placed in context by the introductory sections of the articles. All that is needed is expansion (though some reorganisation might be expedient). James500 ( talk) 01:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC) reply
    Title, sections, don't care. These are not encyclopedia articles and they should be deleted because they are only the names of titles and subtitles. A two- or three-sentence intro is not adequate. Reywas92 Talk 04:19, 28 October 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ James500 The vast majority of commenters so far have argued for these to be moved to draft. You say, "All that is needed is expansion (though some reorganisation might be expedient)." I agree. The disagreement is where the expansion and reorganization should occur, and at what point they will be suitable for mainspace. ~ ONUnicorn( Talk| Contribs) problem solving 13:41, 28 October 2022 (UTC) reply
@ User:ONUnicorn: If you want me to expand these articles, do not move them to the draft space. I will not expand them if they are not in the mainspace. The student who created these pages, and the editor who draftified these pages, have made no further edits to them. James500 ( talk) 02:02, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'm not sure there is much to be decided by editors here as User:MaxnaCarta moved many of this nominated pages to Draft space soon after this AFD was opened. Please do not bypass an AFD discussion by coming to your own consensus via a discussion on Discord. It defeats the purpose of holding an AFD discussion and makes everyone else's participation here irrelevent. AFD is not a place to come to to confirm an editing choice you have already decided to make.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:58, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Liz I did not bypass a discussion intentionally. If you have issues with my conduct they should be address privately not in a deletion discussion. I did not come to my own consensus. I thought I drafted before the AFD had occurred. If I did otherwise it was a mistake, not me “forming my own consensus”. I’ve always respected you for being someone I can ask for help as I try to assist in backend areas, please continue to assume good faith rather than assume I intentionally went over someone’s head to go around a procedure. First, I believe in doing the right thing and would never intentionally do something like that. Second, I’m not invested in trying to get my way. I’d rather get it correct and there’s a million tasks to do so if my desired outcome isn’t reached I move on and do something else. MaxnaCarta ( talk) 22:30, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Oh and to clarify after a look at what I did - here’s what I thought had happened. I thought that some but not all had been nommed for AFD. I thought the ones I was drafting were agreed upon to be drafted in the Discord chat, but didn’t realise I was drafting ones listed here as there was no AFD tag. I’ve bungled something for sure, and I think I need to work more carefully in future but intent is everything and I meant well. I would happily have undone my draft if asked. I did not mean to step on anyones toes. Thanks. MaxnaCarta ( talk) 22:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify the lot. Actually, in my opinion, codes of law can be notable, as are cases. It depends. Bearian ( talk) 02:24, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 20:49, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Mike Carlucci

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

Two sources, one self published. Large amount of content, little to none is cited. WP:NORESUMES TheManInTheBlackHat ( talk) 18:57, 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. Consensus to keep, especially after a mass of sourcing was found by Reywas92 Talk Joyous! | Talk 20:14, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Announcement chime

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

No indication of notability, probably nigh on impossible to find sufficient sources to expand this article. Mattdaviesfsic ( talk) 18:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • delete One sentence description followed by examples which are too obvious as to require explanation. And for that matter, the term is too obvious for explanation. Mangoe ( talk) 00:01, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep, or perhaps there's a way to change the scope or merge this topic. The New York Times has a very good piece on this, and other potential sources I found were [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] Germany [16] [17] Japan [18] [19] [20] [21]. Expanded chime sources include [22] [23] and on coverage voices of announcements includes [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] Reywas92 Talk 00:59, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Plenty of coverage around specific chimes as well as some that compare those of various cities. Plenty to work with. Sounder Bruce 09:20, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, I'm not going to look for the source right now, but at the time this was a prod I found a paper researching how different chime combinations could impart immediate ideas to their audience. For instance to differentiate between routine announcements, warnings, and emergencies. There's certainly an encyclopaedic subject here, it's just waiting for an editor with the enthusiasm to research it. Spinning Spark 16:44, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Reywas92. XtraJovial ( talk • contribs) 21:21, 4 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Conditional keep per WP:HEY, IFF if the sources found are added to the article; otherwise, draftify. Bearian ( talk) 02:30, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Due to the sources found by Reywas92. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:08, 7 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 John Hornby. As noted in this discussion, the sources don't really support the material in the article. Joyous! | Talk 00:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC) reply

The Land of Feast or Famine (Hornby)

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

Article about an unpublished novel manuscript, not properly referenced as passing our notability criteria for novels. The notability claim being attempted here is that it was credited as "helping to build the public's perception of the harshness, danger, and romance of life in the north" -- except that it fails to quantify how an unpublished book (which, by definition, was not widely read) can actually do that -- and the two footnotes here are not reliable or notability-making sources, but consist of a brief glance off the writer's existence in an academic thesis that isn't about him or his work, and an article in a limited circulation magazine published by a private foundation. This is not sufficient sourcing to claim that an unpublished manuscript would pass WP:GNG. Bearcat ( talk) 18:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Canada. Bearcat ( talk) 18:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I thought merge into John Hornby would seem reasonable; however I note Hornby's Dictionary of Canadian Biography entry [30] doesn't mention it, and the Torch Magazine article, which is one of the two sources, doesn't seem to mention it either?? The mentions in the Raffan dissertation appear fairly glancing. There are other mentions, including [31], which refers to it as "notes for a projected book" and "proposed book". Also [32] "I have chosen the name for this book as a tribute to Hornby, who often spoke of writing a book under that title." Also [33] "An account of that winter is in Ingstad’s (1992) book The Land of Feast and Famine, which is the name of John Hornby’s unwritten book (Stewart, 1984)." Also [34] "Under the window on the west side was a leather suitcase....it contained a large notebook in which was the beginning of a story called, "In the Land of Feast or Famine: A Life in the Arctic Region," by J. Hornby. A preface and the first two chapters, also draft reports and notes on Caribou, etc." and there are several more relevant hits in Google. Given that multiple mention of it exists in reliable sources, there seems no harm in at least a redirect and a brief mention in Hornby's article, especially as he appears to have been the originator of a phrase now commonly used to refer to the area. Espresso Addict ( talk) 03:25, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect. The quotes given in this article in the footnotes don't really support the text they're attached to - so agree with Espresso Addict that there is no need for a merge. A single sentence about it on his biography article is all we'd need. -- asilvering ( talk) 23:54, 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 20:49, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply

List of compositions by Matthew de Lacey Davidson

List of compositions by Matthew de Lacey Davidson (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Created by subject. AfD in tandem with subject article. Source is primary generated. Linked pages are also created by subject and need AfD. No notable performances or reviews. Maineartists ( talk) 16:34, 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 20:48, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Matthew de Lacey Davidson

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

Clearly COI. Does not meet notability criteria. Primary links. Sources are not reliable secondary. Maineartists ( talk) 16:27, 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! 22:28, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Okayceci

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

WP:BLP of a musician, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. As always, every musician is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because she exists -- she has to accomplish something quantifiably significant, and have a significant volume and depth of media coverage about her, in order to qualify for inclusion. But this literally just states that she exists, doesn't even attempt a meaningful notability claim beyond "she exists", and is referenced to just one Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself in the first person in an online magazine, which isn't enough sourcing to claim that she would pass WP:GNG. Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when she does meet the necessary standard of substance and sourcing, but this isn't already enough. Bearcat ( talk) 16:16, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

I hadn't seen that at all, but yeah, it should. I'll add it. Bearcat ( talk) 16:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete both - This article, and the online blurbs that it uses as sources, use terms like "up-and-coming" and "rising" which are dead giveaways of a promotional effort by herself and/or a manager, and someone simply copied those blurbs into WP. Good luck to her as she gets started, but she does not qualify for an article here until she gets noticed by reliable and significant music media. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 13:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete both Due to WP:PROMOTION. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:17, 7 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 03:09, 6 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Johnny Angel Wendell

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

I can't find any evidence that this person meets the notability guidelines for music (being a local supporting act for notable bands really, really doesn't count). He's had no charting singles, does not seem to have been instrumental in innovations in his chosen form of music, and as far as I can tell has only received trivial coverage except in the most fringe of publications. The article has been largely edited by two single-purpose accounts, which probably explains its boosterism. The links to it are also very much trivial and show how difficult it was to connect his page to the rest of Wikipedia ... this really shouldn't be the case for punk rock singers from the US, a subject area/country of which we usually have great coverage. Graham 87 13:27, 24 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enos733 ( talk) 16:06, 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 Kixeye. This does not seem to meet General Notability guidelines on its own, but could work well as a section on the parent company's article. Joyous! | Talk 20:48, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Minions (video game)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Looking through the custom WP:VG/RS search engine, I get two results when looking up "minions" and "Paul Preece", one of the developers. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:57, 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 20:47, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Fivetran

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND and WP:SIRS. References are PR, funding news, and routine annoucements. scope_creep Talk 15:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep - In his haste to serially nominate several articles I started for deletion, nom hasn't done a proper WP:BEFORE. A simple Google search turns up another great source on page 2 - an in-depth piece by a Forbes staffer noting that the company is worth billions, and chronicling its history. [ [35]] I'll find some more and add it. Please look more carefully next time. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 18:12, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
It not a case of I've a made a mistake. The article is crock and reference fails WP:ORGIND. scope_creep Talk 21:51, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
More haste. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:53, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The Forbes source linked above: How $5.6 Billion Cloud Company Fivetran Acquired Its Way To Survival lacks sufficient independence per WP:ORGIND because it is based on interviews with George Fraser, CEO/cofounder of Fivetran, Bob Muglia, a Fivetran board member, Martin Casado, "a partner at VC firm Andreessen Horowitz, which was a lead investor on Fivetran’s last three funding rounds", and Y Combinator president Geoff Ralston ("who endearingly counts Fivetran as one of the ultimate “cockroaches” out of more than 3,800 startups that have gone through Y Combinator"). This is a puff piece, accompanying a Forbes Cloud 100 List, and If a source's independence is in any doubt, it is better to exercise caution and exclude it from determining quality sources for the purposes of establishing notability. Beccaynr ( talk) 03:29, 3 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - there is insufficient support per WP:NCORP - the first source in the article ( VentureBeat, 2021) is a raised capital and acquisition announcement (which are examples of trivial coverage per WP:CORPDEPTH) that links to and quotes a Fivetran press release, so it lacks sufficient independence per WP:ORGIND. The second source, Computer Weekly, 2019, is a report on five companies, and the brief Fivetran section begins with quoting CEO Fraser, moves on to what the company says about itself, "Their thesis", "in their view," "what they term" and ends with "Fraser also counsels". This source lacks WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND, and it is the most-frequently cited reference in the article. Other sources in the article are trivial coverage as outlined by WP:CORPDEPTH (i.e. announcements of annual financial results, the opening or closing of local branches, expansions, acquisitions, "top 100" list, and raised capital). There is brief critical coverage from The Register, 2022, and my search finds more press releases and churnalism. Beccaynr ( talk) 04:32, 3 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: a directory-like listing for un unremarkable private company. Fails WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH per review of available sources. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:31, 5 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The editors above have analysed the sources so I don't have to, topic company fails NCORP, none of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing ++ 17:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Source analysis doesn't show that WP:NCORP is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:15, 7 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 here even though discussion has not run 7 days. Without prejudice to any RM if that is a concern. (non-admin closure) Selfstudier ( talk) 13:33, 3 November 2022 (UTC) reply

List of states with limited recognition

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

Completely original research. There is no reference for the "criteria for inclusion". ——🦝 The Interaccoonale Will be the raccoon race ( talk・ contribs) 14:38, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Both the relevant bullet points lead to articles with quite a few references. They're hardly original. CMD ( talk) 14:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
    Source please. ——🦝 The Interaccoonale Will be the raccoon race ( talk・ contribs) 02:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    I have no source listing which Wikipedia articles have references. That sort of thing is verifiable only through our own dogged efforts. CMD ( talk) 14:00, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Article's criteria is well described and content and reasons for inclusion or exclusion are well sourced. I see no facts here I would challenge as original research or of questionable verifiability, and the nomination is quite poorly thought out for a proposal to delete a page with 14 talk page archives and hundreds of editors establishing the article's content. Reywas92 Talk 15:37, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The "inclusion criteria" remains ambiguous, in my opinion. States with near universal recognition are included on the list which has been a talk page concern from many editors- for years. There is an on-going talk page discussion about this which confirms that the "inclusion criteria" (which may also violate WP:PROPORTION) is still a concern for many. Either the criteria gets a much needed update or this issue will become a never-ending saga. Inclined to support a soft delete but I'm hopeful this nomination will actually (and finally) help refine/update the "inclusion criteria". If that happens, then inclined to support a strong keep. Regards, Archives908 ( talk) 16:49, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep There seems to be some edit warring and arguments on the talk page about certain things being included. There are 110 references in the article. This is an encyclopedic topic. No valid reason given for deletion. Dream Focus 18:24, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
    There doesn't seem to be an active edit war on List of states with limited recognition. Last major edit was 11 days ago. As for the talk page, there is an on-going conversation regarding this topic and it seems pretty civil to me. Archives908 ( talk) 19:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
    agreed Victory to the UAW ( talk) 11:46, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. No evident OR - the criteria can be sourced per CMD and the article as a whole is well-supported. I'd argue that Archives908's comment above is trying to use the deletion process as a means of pressuring editors to take the user's position in a content dispute, which is not what it is for. I would note, however, that a brief review of the talk page archives would demonstrate that the dispute is not anything like as entrenched or repetitious as the comment would imply. Kahastok  talk 18:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
    That's a loaded assumption and not at all appreciated. Simply made a comment to alert others that there is an active talk page discussion about this topic, which may be of interest. Archives908 ( talk) 19:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
    If that's what it is, then it's inappropriate campaigning because it's not a neutral description of the question. Kahastok  talk 19:08, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
    No, it is not. As you can see, I did not cast a vote to keep or delete the article and have remained pretty neutral. I see the merits in the nom but also for a keep. My comment is focused on the main topic of this nom- which is the "criteria for inclusion". Please don't twist my intentions. Thanks! Archives908 ( talk) 19:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
    Oh, come off it. Your comment is almost entirely about how the inclusion of the likes of China and Israel has been a talk page concern from many editors- for years and will become a never-ending saga unless you get your way, to the point where you argue for a soft delete if you don't get your way and a strong keep if you do.
  • Turns out, somebody here actually looked through the talk page archive, at least for the last 11 years. Turns out, the point has been raised precisely twice in that entire period, both in 2022. Turns out, this supposedly-serious never-ending saga, this major concern for many editors for many years, did not result in so much as a single discussion for the entire period from at least March 2011 to May 2022. In that context, I see no reason not to call bullshit. Kahastok  talk 23:01, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
    Discussions about rules of inclusion, options for rename and scoping, what to include, terminology and so forth (non-country specific threads) and then I skipped a few that in essence are about the way the list is compiled.
    2006 "Unrecognized countries or secessionist teritories?"
    2006 "Criteria for inclusion in this list" / "categories"
    2007 "Partially unrecognised states"
    2007 "suggestion"
    2007 "Section merging / confusion"
    2007 "Five tiny proposals for titles of sections and subsections"
    2008 "partially recognized"?
    2008 "Recognised/unrecoginsed by UN Security Council states"
    2008 "Terms of reference"
    2008 "Rename proposal: to List of partially recognised sovereignty"
    2009 "Proposal for new classification of states"
    2009 "Substantial recognition status"
    2009 "De Facto States"
    2009 "More states?"
    2009 "UN member states, not recognized by at least one other state"
    2011 "Governments with limited recognition versus states with limited recognition"
    2012 "Recognized by at least one/ not recognized by at least one"
    2012 "People here are thinking UN is some sort of important atlas?"
    2014 "RFC: Propose use of terminologies "non-UN members""
    2014 "Requested move 07 December 2014"
    2018 "Can absence of any recognition be considered as "limited recognition"?"
    2020 "Inclusion criteria - Academic sources"
    2021 "RfC on the inclusion of DNR and LNR in the list of states with limited recognition"
    2022 "Criteria of inclusion"
    2022 "Let's not include states with close to universal recognition as having "limited recognition""
    2022 "Limited vs. partial recognition" Labrang ( talk) 23:57, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
So, what you're saying is this. You are suggesting that the fact that we had an RFC in 2021 on the topic of whether Donetsk and Luhansk met the current inclusion criteria at that time is evidence of the claim States with near universal recognition are included on the list which has been a talk page concern from many editors- for years. Bearing in mind that neither Donetsk nor Luhansk had ever been recognised by any UN member state at that time.
Frankly, if anything this proves my point. Most of that list is in the same territory. You can see that from the titles - note no links as a rule. I haven't checked the pre-2011 cases, but there is no evidence from the talk page history of what is claimed to be an serious ongoing long-term dispute. Kahastok  talk 18:36, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Please provide reliable sources for the "criteria for inclusion" if you wan to keep it. Who defined it? In which literature (books or journals)? Otherwise this article is completely original research. ——🦝 The Interaccoonale Will be the raccoon race ( talk・ contribs) 23:16, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Why use the recognition of UN-Member States to define this concept, rather than the recognition of any de facto State? The United States is not recognized by South Ossetia and Transnistria. Is the United States a "state with limited recognition"?——🦝 The Interaccoonale Will be the raccoon race ( talk・ contribs) 23:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
    Thank you for that point. I was going to raise that. That argument would make this list a so called "coathanger". Gact is, we already look through the lens of UN-members when considering whether a country is ("universally") recognized. We do not consider a (UN) country not-universally recognized if it is not recognized by a non-UN-member. Such as the example above (or pick another one). Logical, because if we do this list would explode. The entire distinction of "(non) universal" recognition is construed around UN members recognizing states. Hence it is logical to use that as a distinct factor. Labrang ( talk) 00:02, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    Ok, but who defined it? ——🦝 The Interaccoonale Will be the raccoon race ( talk・ contribs) 00:32, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    Source please that the United States is not recognised by Transnistria. CMD ( talk) 01:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    they have no diplomatic relations ——🦝 The Interaccoonale Will be the raccoon race ( talk・ contribs) 02:28, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    That is not a lack of recognition. CMD ( talk) 02:44, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. If there are any problems here they can be fixed with editing. If a better name exists then that can be discussed and the article moved. Clearly there is a legitimate topic here and no valid reason to delete. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 13:50, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: the criteria for inclusion seem simple to me, to be basically: "the state either satisfies the declarative theory or sensibly satisfies the constitutive theory". The limitation on the constitutive theory is there just to ensure we don't get silly and include Sealand or Molossia. Somaliland is a bit of a wrinkle, but the wrinkle in itself doesn't justify deletion. Sceptre ( talk) 16:02, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, I would rename the section "List criteria" to avoid future confusion. There isn't anything there that can't be discussed on the talkpage if the scope is to be widened. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 17:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    Thanks, please provide the sources as well. ——🦝 The Interaccoonale Will be the raccoon race ( talk・ contribs) 00:59, 2 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Reliable sources discuss and compare/contrast "states with limited recognition". Where does the notion that we need to cite sources or reference for inclusion criteria of standalone lists come from? Reliable sources might not even use the same exact definition with one another of what qualifies as a "state with limited recognition". StellarHalo ( talk) 07:14, 2 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per valid arguments given above (mainly those of Reywas92, Sceptre, and StellarHalo). Encyclopedic topic with sourcing sufficient to pass WP:NLIST and WP:GNG. Sal2100 ( talk) 19:40, 2 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the concept is very well established in countless very reliable sources. It is not original research in any meaningful way to say that states that have limited recognition exists. Insofar as such states exist, a list of them is perfectly reasonable. -- Jayron 32 13:15, 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 14:15, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Kevin J. Maclean

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

I PRODded saying no evidence he met N:MUSIC but missed a 2009 PROD (thanks @ GB fan:) so we're here. Star Mississippi 14:08, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Scotland. Star Mississippi 14:08, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete next to nothing for RS. Social media sites, streaming sites, then it peters off. Oaktree b ( talk) 14:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. As usual, musicians aren't automatically notable just because they exist, and instead must be shown and reliably sourced as meeting at least one specific notability criterion in WP:NMUSIC — but neither the content nor the sourcing here demonstrate any such thing. Bearcat ( talk) 15:38, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - As far as I can see does not have the sort of coverage or career so far that would suggest he is currently or has been notable enough to have his own article. Dunarc ( talk) 21:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I did some research into him and nothing notable or significant about his career RealPharmer3 ( talk) 01:19, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Does not meet notability criteria. Coldupnorth ( talk) 22:43, 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 Shawntheshipper Liz Read! Talk! 10:14, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Zulqarnain sikandar

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

Not notable actor per (NACTOR). Just checked the facts and they don't match. The mentioned movies in the table are not relevant to this guy. Possible faking the facts. Morpho achilles ( talk) 13:15, 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. ✗ plicit 11:42, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Jóhannes Stefánsson

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

Was redirected as a result of an AfD a couple of years ago, and nothing has changed since then. Case of WP:BIO1E. No notability outside of the scandal. Should be a redirect to that page, but redirect was challenged. Onel5969 TT me 11:13, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep The article has been expanded and improved a lot since the AfD a couple years ago, and he received a prestigious international award in the field.
His notability being mainly limited to the scandal isnt the point and isnt a disqualifier, which WP:BIO1E says. If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. That definitely applies.
The BLP includes a lot of RS info that isnt in the Fishrot Files article and has no clear place to add it. If we merged the articles, it would basically double the size of the Fishrot Files article Softlemonades ( talk) 11:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 12:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Africa. North America 1000 12:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The subject played a major role in one of Iceland's an Namibia's biggest scandals of the century and has been highly covered in both Icelandic and Namibian sources. Being mainly notable for one event does not disqualify the subject from having an article per WP:BIO1E. Alvaldi ( talk) 21:00, 3 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per above discussion. I don't understand the nom. If he wants to merge, then merge it or propose a merger. That's not the purpose of AfD. Bearian ( talk) 02:39, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply
I believe the nomination is asking for an official redirect, not a merger. The last AFD decision was to redirect but that obviously didn't last. Liz Read! Talk! 09:34, 7 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. It was either No consensus or relisting this discussion for another week so I chose NC. Liz Read! Talk! 09:30, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Lady Helena Gibbs

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

I am having trouble finding in-depth coverage of the subject, as required by our notability criteria. If, as it seems to me, she is only ever mentioned in passing, there should probably be no stand-alone article about her on Wikipedia. Surtsicna ( talk) 10:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Royalty and nobility, United Kingdom, and England. Surtsicna ( talk) 10:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • I had thought her life was quite interesting, but then this happened. I am now inclining towards delete or redirect. She 'helped' open a children's home and opened a local flower show? These are not things that speak of substantial notability. Celia Homeford ( talk) 13:02, 31 October 2022 (UTC) No longer 'inclined' but definite. The insignificant content added to the article appears to demonstrate that she did nothing exceptional. Celia Homeford ( talk) 13:57, 3 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - her marriage to Gibbs received quite a bit of notice, both in England and abroad. I have added the coverage to the page. The later articles about her opening children's homes and local flower shows is an indication of on-going coverage of her role in society. DaffodilOcean ( talk) 13:36, 3 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Let's be honest: that's routine coverage. It does not qualify as in-depth coverage, not even remotely. Otherwise I am very grateful for your contribution. Surtsicna ( talk) 18:36, 3 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Throughout her life she was the subject of news coverage. I concur that some recent additions to the page have not helped to improve it (as no doubt the editor hoped to do). Noel S McFerran ( talk) 01:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Where is the in-depth coverage? It is one of our notability criteria. Surtsicna ( talk) 07:57, 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 23:33, 6 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Current Communications Group

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

Unable to find any secondary reliable sources with in-depth coverage. This article was previously (incorrectly) batch-nominated with some others at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ESR Technology. Giraffer ( talk· contribs) 08:55, 17 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! 08:45, 24 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete zero sources found, appears to be a defunct company. Oaktree b ( talk) 13:05, 24 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 10:03, 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 List of recurring characters in The Suite Life of Zack & Cody. Liz Read! Talk! 09:25, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Mr. Moseby

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

MULTIPLE flags. Describes a work or element of fiction in a primarily in-universe style, relies largely or entirely on a single source, contains original research, includes a list of general references, but it lacks sufficient corresponding inline citations, and lacks relevance. This is just a fictional character biography that does not meet the encyclopedic tone of wikipedia. Has been reported multiple times but has seen little improvement in the years since it was voted not to be deleted.

Merge to list. Article is way too bad and barely any sources have been found. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 22:19, 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 23:35, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Alexander Blockx

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

Lacks notability. Gets passing mentions now as the partner of Bemelmans at his farewell tournament, but no significant attention for him yet. Fram ( talk) 08:16, 24 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 09:31, 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:46, 5 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Massimo Scolari

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

BLP with no references Rathfelder ( talk) 08:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Fine. FINE. But the article was a mad 2008 throwback and should never have been allowed (by the Universe, clearly) to stay in that state for so long. I can't blame the nom for this one, honestly. BEFORE is a choice, not a burden and the article is a travesty. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 16:12, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
I simply don't understand why established editors who have Wikipedia Library access don't just dump the quoted name into the WL search engine and see what comes out. In this case there are 299 hits, the first page of which look to be the right guy. I admit it's more difficult when the name is "John Smith", or the subject is Chinese, or Arabic, or Russian, but in this case there seems no excuse. Espresso Addict ( talk) 19:33, 2 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, I'll hold up my hands and admit I added the 'notability' template in 2014 ...and the article is still in poor shape, being largely taken word-for-word from Scolari's website. But I can see numerous articles about him and reviews of his books, in reputable architectural magazines. If indeed he has works in major art institutions like MOMA, that is more than adequate to pass WP:NARTIST. I'll have a look at imporving the article tonight. Sionk ( talk) 16:26, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per all the reasons above. Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:26, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, per above & WL search mentioned above. Espresso Addict ( talk) 19:33, 2 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Happy to withdraw this now there are references. Rathfelder ( talk) 19:29, 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 keep. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 08:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Vesturbæjarlaug

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

The article itself seems like a small display ad without proper contextual information and lacks authoritative citing. It's also out of the bounds of WP:Notability guidelines. JackFredrickk801 ( talk) 07:56, 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 redirect to Peace (film). Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 03:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Sanfeer K

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

The list of specialisations is rather exhausting for this Keralite polymath - geographer, scientist, web designer, lyricist, composer and feature film director. The difficulty is finding which of these, if any, confer notability on him. The ultimate answer is 'none', although there is potentially an emerging case for future notability if he directs more films than the one, Peace, which has the most attention in the article as it stands. Coverage across the board is interviews, incidental and passing mentions in the main and he doesn't make WP:FILMMAKER or WP:DIRECTOR. He doesn't appear to make WP:NACADEMIC and based on coverage alone arguably fails WP:GNG. It's probably WP:TOOSOON but on the balance, right now, he is not clearly notable. Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 06:11, 17 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Music, Science, India, and Kerala. Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 06:11, 17 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: The page annoys me from the first line. Elsevier is not a journal, it is a publisher of academic journals. The paper mentioned in the first sentence is in Spatial and Spatio-temporal Epidemiology. Even if we keep it there is going to have to be some fundamental cleanup. JMWt ( talk) 07:16, 17 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Further thoughts; I don't think he meets WP:NACADEMIC as he only published a couple of papers more than 5 years ago. Whether he is notable for films needs more investigation. It seems like he has some fairly solid articles on the page in decent publications, but some of these sound a bit like regurgitated press releases - issued to gain a bit of PR. But it is possible that there are more in-depth articles given that his background is unusual. JMWt ( talk) 07:29, 17 October 2022 (UTC) reply
OK, I'm not finding much other than reviews of the film. So I'm thinking, unless anyone can find better refs, that the best thing to do is merge with Peace (film). I have some doubts about that page too, as it is quite hard to tell whether it is more than a reasonably well-received first film by a director. JMWt ( talk) 07:39, 17 October 2022 (UTC) reply
An alternative to deletion may be a redirect to Peace (film)... Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 07:48, 17 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Peace (film). That's what his name is connected to. All the rest is painfully promotional puffery with no coverage independent of the director role. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 08:30, 17 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - This person is an happening director of Malayalam films and clearly very notable, but I am not familiar with his scientist tag. 182.77.38.23 ( talk) 07:46, 18 October 2022 (UTC) — 182.77.38.23 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:00, 24 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - The person is a notable film maker with a couple of projects with adequate references; the page looks okay now and his project scientist job too is having citations. 49.37.215.224 ( talk) 07:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC) — 49.37.215.224 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:07, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Research work is routine and WP:NOTCV, and he does not meet WP:NFILMMAKER. LizardJr8 ( talk) 22:58, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Sanfeer is now a notable director of Mollywood with three projects going on including Tamil. His status as a scientist is not relevant here. Cpsathar ( talk) 13:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 0x Deadbeef→∞ ( talk to me) 10:29, 6 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - not seeing significant coverage, fails WP:GNG, and not seeing how his research work would contribute to notability either. 0x Deadbeef→∞ ( talk to me) 10:32, 6 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Sanfeer is a notable film director of Kerala. Omkaaram ( talk) 06:22, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I don't see secondary coverage of the subject. This reads like a puff piece supported by original research. Statements like "[he is] known for his contributions to geography through peer-reviewed publications" should go. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk) 07:58, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Peace (film) It appears that his primary notability comes from his association there. If he continues his film career, or makes significant contributions in some of the other areas he seems to be interested in, his article might be revisited. Joyous! | Talk 01:12, 8 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 08:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply

500 Miles North

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

The article has no significant or secondary sources. It currently fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Also, it has been flagged for additional citations for verification since April 2019. In my own WP:BEFORE I haven’t not found anything of significance that would help the article to pass notability guidelines, but if you do find some, please do provide them. Fats40boy11 ( talk) 07:04, 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. There is consensus that this article is not currently suitable for mainspace. What is unclear is whether anyone plans on actually working on it in draft space. While it's very true that it's not required, a stale draft just kicks the can down the road six months. That said, if someone intends to work on it - no need to go to refund. I will restore it to draft space. Just ask. Star Mississippi 03:27, 8 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Indian Springs State Bank

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

A Google search returns Wikipedia mirrors and no real in depth sources about the bank. Suggested merge and redirect to Farhad Azima or Global International Airways. Grey Wanderer ( talk) 15:46, 16 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Kansas. Grey Wanderer ( talk) 15:46, 16 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Earlier today I deprodded this article and left an indication in the edit summary that I could improve the page with sourced information but I had to go out and couldn't do it immediately. So thanks for not waiting and giving me a chance to do that (which I will now put on hold until it decided whether this is to be kept}. This book and the Oversight Hearing here and [42] between them provide references for most of the material removed from the article (by the nom) in this edit as unreliably sourced. There is also scope for further expansion from those two sources. This book, although basically an art book, seems well researched and has a lot to say on the connection between the Indian Springs bank and mobsters over several pages. If you don't like that one try books with a more political theme [43] [44] [45]. In short, there is plenty of material out there to expand the article. Spinning Spark 16:30, 16 October 2022 (UTC) reply
User:Spinningspark, thank you for taking on improving the article. I can tell you wrote the above in anger, don’t forget to assume good faith. Firstly, please strike out your false claim that I removed any content from article. The edit you have linked was not me. Secondly, I took you quite literally in your edit summery, you left no indication you planned to return, if you had done so I wouldn’t have nominated the article so quickly… so that too seems to be misleading at best and for the sake of integrity ought to be struck through. Either way, sarcastic “thank yous” aren’t constructive. We’re all just trying to build a better encyclopedia here. Grey Wanderer ( talk)
Looking at the sources above, I see a lot of what may be WP:Fringe, an inappropriate primary source, possibly self-published books, and some trivial mentions (your first one is one short paragraph in a 300 page book which also has some pretty out there info about the apparent connection between Freemasons, the New World Order, the Illuminati, George Bush, and Nuclear Weapons). If these are the best sources available then at the moment it doesn’t look to me to demonstrate the bank meets WP:GNG. It’s a bit alarming to see an Administrator link such blatantly unreliable sources. Grey Wanderer ( talk) 01:30, 17 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Your main mistake appears to be spelt out in the first three words of your nomination. Why on Earth would you expect to find reliable sources about anything, but particularly a bank that failed in 1984, on the web? Search in books and academic papers for reliable sources. Phil Bridger ( talk) 14:02, 17 October 2022 (UTC) reply
My apologies for incorrectly identifying you as the deleting editor. You are right that I posted in haste and may not have been too careful in choosing sources to list. I wanted to post my thoughts before there were any pile-on deletes to this discussion. However, I think it is worth you looking again at Inside Job: The Looting of America's Savings and Loans [46]. This was published by Open Road Media, a republisher of old books. It was originally published in 1989 by McGraw Hill, a well known reliable publisher. The original edition can be borrowed from IA here if you have an account. The bank is discussed from page 98 onwards and continues to be referenced for the next 20 pages or so. You weren't explicit in what you meant by "inappropriate primary source" but I suppose you meant the text from the Oversight Hearing. It's certainly not inappropriate and primary sources can be used with care in articles. The very fact that the bank was discussed at such a hearing is evidence of some notability. It could be used for quotes and undisputed facts, but not for drawing conclusions. Spinning Spark 14:30, 17 October 2022 (UTC) reply
That one source seems to be an ok start. Forgive my suspicion but given the quality of the other six sources I didn’t spend much time investigating the original publisher of that book. However, we will need multiple sources to establish notability, if you find some I will withdraw my nomination. The primary source is inappropriate because WP:GNG explicitly states sources used to establish notability should be secondary. Am I misunderstanding this? I am flummoxed as to why you would think there wouldn’t be any sources on the web considering you have only provided sources on the web. As you know the minimum search expected before nominating requires more than just a basic Google search, so I’m not sure what my “main mistake” was but if I’ve made others please tell me so I can avoid repeating them in the future. I’ve never been particularly active at AfD, and I know policies can change. Grey Wanderer ( talk) 19:46, 17 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Please don't confuse me with Spinningspark. We are different people. You only addressed in your nomination a Google web search, which for just about any subject, notable or not, finds mostly Wikipedia mirrors and unreliable sources. You did not address your findings from searching for reliable sources. Phil Bridger ( talk) 20:04, 17 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Sorry about that! I see now you are not the same. I’m still confused as to where I made a mistake? I did my due diligence per WP:AfD step D, as required before nom. If more is required please link a policy so I can learn. Perhaps you thought I just did a basic Google search? I will be more specific next time before I nominate something. Since Wikipedia only uses reliable sources why would you assume that’s not what I’m talking about in the nom? Grey Wanderer ( talk) 20:35, 17 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or Draftify, if Spinningspark is willing to work on it. Of the two current sources, neither is significant coverage of the institution (the AP article is about the owner, and only mentions it several times). Searches on Google books did not turn up enough to meet GNG. Newspapers.com might be a promising area to look, there are hundreds of hits. However, of the 50 or so I looked at, all were simple mentions or advertisements. It would take time to wade through all the articles and see if there is enough there. Onel5969 TT me 18:06, 23 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:14, 23 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Comment I found one mention ("In the Kansas indictment announced yesterday, Mr. Renda and others are charged with defrauding the Indian Springs State Bank and Coronado Federal Savings and Loan, both of Kansas City, of $7 million in unsecured real-estate loans after brokering deposits into the two institutions.") in NYT. Ebsco has more:
    Ringer, R & Fraust, B 1984, ‘A tale of brokered deposits and a busted bank; FDIC blames tie-in arrangements for failure of small shopping center bank in Kansas’, American Banker, vol. 149, p. 1, viewed 24 October 2022
    Margolies, D 1990, ‘Defendant in bank fraud case returned to Kansas City’, The Kansas City Business Journal, vol. 9, no. 4, p. 11, viewed 24 October 2022,
    Ringer, R & Fraust, B 1984, ‘A tale of brokered deposits and a busted bank; FDIC blames tie-in arrangements for failure of small shopping center bank in Kansas’, American Banker, vol. 149, p. 1, viewed 24 October 2022
All of these (and others) turn up under the search, but whether that results in the bank itself being notable is up for discussion, IMO. Lamona ( talk) 03:19, 24 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify Currently lacks in-depth coverage to meet WP:NCORP, however it is plausible that such sources exist if a user is keen to do the hard yards. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd draftify this article with more assurances that it would be worked on.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:19, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Comment – Hi Liz: Yeah, drafification here may be the way, but at AfD, I feel that it's inappropriate to request any users to obligate to work on the article as a requirement for draftification. Part of the notion here is, so if nobody obligates themselves to improving the contents, then would you instead decide to delete, sans said obligatory improvements? Sorry, but it typically doesn't work this way. This is a volunteer community, not a job assignment community. North America 1000 13:11, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
    I will definitely add the material and sources I have found if the article is kept. If it goes to draft, not so likely it will be me doing the work and then having to implore some spotty kid of a reviewer to allow it after all of 32 seconds of attention. Either we have found enough to meet NORG or we haven't. If we have, then WP:NEXIST applies and the article should be kept. Spinning Spark 13:59, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Spinningspark:. I found a relevant policy at WP:NCORP: WP:ILLCON. Arn't all of these sources about the bank's alleged crimes? If so, then I can’t see how the bank meets notability. Grey Wanderer ( talk) 14:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
    However, the organization may still be notable, in whole or in part due to such sources, under different guidelines, e.g., WP:CRIME. Spinning Spark 16:37, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
    I am a bit confused by that part; help me understand. Doesn't WP:CRIME only apply to biography articles? Besides, isn’t it best to follow the guidelines for organizations and companies since that is what we are dealing with? Do any of the sources you've found deal with the company outside of it's criminal activity and subsequent failure? Grey Wanderer ( talk) 16:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
    To be honest, that bit confused me too, but the guideline only gives CRIME as an example, not as the only guideline that may apply. The basic point I think is that the illegal (or unwise) activity may itself be notable separately from the organisation. That kind of implies that the article should be structured (and possibly named) around that activity rather than structured as a regular bank article. If CRIME were not specifically in the NBIO guieline, it would certainly apply in this case imo, and remember, a bank counts as a juridical person. Spinning Spark 17:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
    Hmmm food for thought at least, I'm learning some things. If the company is "notable under different guidelines" don't we need sources that discuss the bank outside of it's criminal activity? I'm looking at sources like the news story above that describes the "failure of small shopping center bank in Kansas." Is a small shopping center bank notable? The only interesting thing about the company is its criminal activity, which according to WP:NCORP "can't be used to establish notability". Grey Wanderer ( talk) 21:01, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
North America, I didn't expect my relisting comment to obligate anyone to working on this article in Draft space. I understand that we are all volunteers. I guess what I was trying to get at was that Draftifying was an alternative to Deletion. I've found in the AFDs I review, sometimes editors get into a Keep vs. Delete mindset and forget about alternatives like Redirecting, Merging or Draftifying. It might not have been my place as the relisting editor but I just want to encourage participating editors to consider alternatives beyond Keeping and Deleting. Liz Read! Talk! 07:15, 2 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify as per the arguments above, none of the references meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability, give Spinningspark an opportunity to improve in Drafts. No biggie if it doesn't work out, Drafts will get deleted after 6 months in any case, or hopefully this topic will be returned with adequate referencing. HighKing ++ 19:53, 6 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. ✗ plicit 14:28, 2 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Deora, Colorado

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

1920 is a really late date for a new 4th class post office, but the Taylor reference states that's what it was, and the topos and aerials tend to confirm this: the same two farms still sit there, and one of them is the location of the old post office. You can still use it as an alternate city in two zip codes, but there's no sign this was a town. Mangoe ( talk) 03:37, 17 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:57, 24 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! 05:55, 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! 05:13, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Genetix

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

Non-notable virtual machine platform. Has some mentions in publications from the 2000s but did not appear to make any major impact. Natg 19 ( talk) 04:52, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep It is unclear which policy or guideline nominator is referring to. There is significant coverage (not "mentions") in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject, as suggested in WP:GNG. The word "impact" does not appear in Wikipedia:Notability, and is not a deciding factor when determining notability. -- Bensin ( talk) 17:05, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Has good coverage in multiple independent sources (I only looked at the New Scientist and IT World Canada references, and I feel they are sufficient). I do wonder if it might need to be re-written from the present to the past tense though... Thparkth ( talk) 20:42, 4 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - The article might need rewording and expansion, but the references already present in the article show significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Notability is not temporary; that the references are not from within the past few years is not evidence of a lack of notability. While being "significant in its particular field" is one of the four criteria of WP:NSOFT, not meeting that criteria is not indicative of a lack of notability. - Aoidh ( talk) 03:57, 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 redirect to List of Sri Lanka Army Sports Club cricketers. Liz Read! Talk! 05:12, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Krishantha Ukwatte

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

Fails SIGCOV and by extension GNG. Zero sources and notability is not demonstrated by neither the article nor Google. InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 04:09, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Sri Lanka. InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 04:09, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • On that rationale, as a double negative, we should keep the article. I'll take a look and see if Krishantha made more appearances as he seems to have been a new player when the article was written. Sources certainly exist in Sri Lanka, which is a major cricket nation, but they are difficult for English editors to find as they are mostly written in Sinhala. If the article does fail SIGCOV, WP:ATD must apply per policy and I'll find a suitable target. BoJó | talk UTC 06:23, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
That was his sole first-class appearance so it looks like a redirect per ATD unless he is notable in some non-cricket aspect. Leave it with me while I work out where it can go. BoJó | talk UTC 06:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
I've just created List of Sri Lanka Army Sports Club cricketers so this can be a redirect to that per the WP:ATD policy. BoJó | talk UTC 06:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • He has profiles on both CricInfo - the first hit if you press the Google link above the AfD nom - and CricketArchive - an external link from the article page. So we can verify that he played a single match for the side. Both of those are reliable enough in this case. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 20:40, 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 02:47, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Faruque Ahmed

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

I don't see the person received any significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Didn't won any significant award or honor. The person's works hasn't become a significant monument, won significant critical attention. Also clearly COI involve here, looks like created by someone close, e.g. File:Faruque Ahmed 2014.JPG "PD-self" uploaded by the creator. Article fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk) 02:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete; I fully concur with Lionfox and আফতাবুজ্জামান. InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 04:35, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete: I got nothing per Google search about this subject. ( Kasar Wuya, talk) 06:04, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

It’s not reasonably claimed to delete the article.let’s be reasonable and share your points on the request of deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abraz Ahmed ( talk • contribs) 19:08, 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 02:48, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Association of Translators and Interpreters of Saskatchewan

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

I PRODded, missing the prior bundle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interpreters/Translators Society of the Northwest Territories. It was subsequently recreated and deleted as A7 and then re-created, but I remain unable to find N:ORG level for this membership association. Star Mississippi 01:59, 17 October 2022 (UTC) reply

I am also nominating the following because of the same issues with a lack of independent, reliable sourcing:

Association of Translators and Interpreters of Alberta (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Star Mississippi 02:06, 17 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete both wp:norg fail, significant coverage not found. ( t · c) buidhe 07:56, 17 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Search in Newspapers.com yields in-depth provincial newspaper coverage including this 1990 article in The Leader-Post, and there are other articles discussing the organization including this 1991 article, also in The Leader Post and this 1980 article in The Leader-Post. All of the above coverage relies heavily on representatives of the organization as sources...but it is possible there is more in there if one looks closely. Coverage in The Saskatoon Sun is mostly mentions. If additional coverage were found – e.g., in-depth from a publication other than The Leader-Post plus some discussion of the organization outside Saskatchewan, or commentary from an outside expert, acknowledging its importance – I could lean more toward !keep. A further comment though is that if all these associations are being deleted, I would strongly recommend turning the redlinks black on the following page (and any others like it): Canadian_Translators,_Terminologists_and_Interpreters_Council Cielquiparle ( talk) 10:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete it should be removed per WP:NORG 24.138.27.215 ( talk) 11:03, 19 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! 01:52, 24 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 02:42, 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 08:14, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Amy Loughren

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

Loughren is a low-profile individual who is notable for only one event, stopping serial killer Charles Cullen, per WP:BLP1E. Person does not have notability beyond this to warrant a standalone article. Person's background can be covered at Charles Cullen, which is the article that houses the complete background of which Cullen is the center. Any current coverage about Loughren is still rooted in her history of stopping Cullen. Erik ( talk |  contrib) ( ping me) 01:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Yes, ONEEVENT, but subject is featured in a film where she's played by Jessica Chastain looking to add to her awards mantel. I'd say this BLP is solid enough (and at worse we're talking a redirect to The Good Nurse, not any kind of deletion or PERP redirect). Nate • ( chatter) 03:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Yes, I do not oppose covering Loughren in a broader article. The point is that per WP:BLP1E, a biography is not suitable. She is a low-profile individual who is only notable for stopping Cullen, and other details like her being a grandmother are indiscriminate in this scope. It's like creating biographies for police officers or Good Samaritans who put a stop to mass shootings, and the news reports about these low-profile individuals for a news cycle. The fact Chastain played her is straightforward and covered in one sentence and does not mean Loughren suddenly inherits her standalone notability from the actor's performance (which is of Loughren's only notable act, stopping Cullen). Erik ( talk |  contrib) ( ping me) 13:23, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Except that most police officers or good samaritans don't have films made about them. She is notable for the fact that her story has been made into a film. Lard Almighty ( talk) 13:26, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • The film is not biographical. It does not cover Loughren's life. It covers Loughren's sole notable deed. In the same sense, "films made about them" is fuzzy logic; the film made covered Loughren's notable deed, not her life or her larger story. Erik ( talk |  contrib) ( ping me) 13:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • It is still more than the average police officer or good samaritan, so my point remains that your comparison is not apt. And indeed, the title of the film refers to her. Yes it's an episode of her life, as many biopics are, but it is still notable. Lard Almighty ( talk) 13:54, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep "notable for only one event" which is "stopping serial killer Charles Cullen". Yes, that's notable enough. Krimuk2.0 ( talk) 06:45, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep With the release of the film there is increasing coverage specifically of Loughren and her life apart from the "one event". Lard Almighty ( talk) 11:34, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and mention in Charles Cullen / The Good Nurse article. Subject is low profile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.60.100.34 ( talk) 11:37, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I think I would enjoy reading the articles about the "good samaritans who stopped mass killings." Also, would someone please direct me to the policy that says every detail, no matter how banal, of a murderer's life is interesting, but by no means would we ever want to study or even document the lives of people who rise to heroism?-- Literaturegirl ( talk) 16:07, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:40, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Subject of a book and a movie. WP:BLP1E#3 ("the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented") is not met, so BLP1E does not apply. pburka ( talk) 20:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The film sounds biographical, according to Jessica Chastain in the AP, and this newly-created article can continue to be developed. Between the book, film, and documentary, (and a preview of scholarly journal I cannot access via GScholar), I agree WP:BLP1E#3 is not met, because her event is significant, her role in assisting law enforcement was substantial and well-documented, so merger into a biography of someone known primarily for a different event is not supported. Beccaynr ( talk) 01:35, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep WP:BLP1E is explicit that it applies "when each of three conditions is met". Criteria 3 only applies when "the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented" and in this case, Loughren's role was significant in pinning down the case and her actions are covered amply in reliable and verifiable sources about her. The notability standard is met and BLP1E does NOT apply. Alansohn ( talk) 15:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep — She's been in the mainstream media since Cullen's arrest in 2003, again during the release of Charles Graeber's best-seller book in 2013, and now in 2022 is the principle character in a highly rated film. — WILDSTAR TALK 20:33, 2 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. WP:BLP1E#3 ("If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented.") is NOT met. Stopping a serial killer is a significant event. Being the one who was instrumental in his arrest and conviction (without her contribution, he would have likely gone free) makes her role substantial. Her role in that event being the subject of a film (and a possible documentary) is solid documentation. CD ( talk) 02:33, 3 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and redirect to Charles Cullen. Everything in this article can be mentioned there. I'd like to add that the nomination actually overstates her notability despite arguing against it, if a recent interview with Loughren in the Grauniad is to be believed. Loughren didn't "stop Cullen" - he was caught by the hospital's computerised dispensing system, and then the police. The identity of the person at Somerset Medical Center who noticed the red flags in the dispensing system and called the police isn't known. Loughren didn't notice anything untoward while she was working with Cullen. Even after the police had been called she initially refused to believe the allegations until they showed her the evidence. The wiretap and partial confession was her sole contribution. AfD isn't a place to debate how many brownie points people get for assisting a police investigation, but while Loughren may be a major character in The Good Nurse, her contribution to the actual investigation, and by extension her notability, is very tenuous.
It appears that her role may have been rather overstated in a New York Post interview she gave nine years ago. -- 195.206.172.158 ( talk) 09:30, 3 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Oh, can we now please, please have a discussion on whether Kim Kardashian's actual accomplishments make her worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia? Or is somebody going to tell me it's about the coverage? Damn, it's about the coverage, isn't it? Literaturegirl ( talk) 19:03, 3 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The coverage meets WP:GNG (and as Literaturegirl noted above, whether her role was "overstated" or not is irrelevant for WP:GNG). The real question is whether she's significant beyond WP:BLP1E standards, specifically criterial #3 (1 and 2 are clearly met—she's only covered in the context of a single event, and she has otherwise remained low-profile). To be honest I think this is more iffy than some others here do, mostly because I am not sure how broad "the event" is meant to be applied here—is it the whole crime or just the discovery, arrest, and sentencing the article subject was involved in? Either way, I'm still inclined to say that the event is significant (even if "the event" here is just understood to mean the discovery, arrest, and sentencing, and not the murders themselves), and her role seems to have been both substantial and well documented. I think this is a reasonable article that merits inclusion. Dylnuge ( Talk • Edits) 00:26, 6 November 2022 (UTC) reply

KEEP - I came to Wikipedia specifically looking to find out about the true person portayed as hero of a best selling biography and now Netflix bio-pic. This “news” is almost 20 years old so the fact we’re talking about her twenty years on suggests she was a bit more than some Good Samaritan for a one off incident forgotten as soon as the news cycle moved on — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.37.146.218 ( talk) 09:05, 6 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. Sources were found during the discussion that participants determined would meet WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Enos733 ( talk) 05:34, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Adelbert S. Hay

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

Biography of a politician, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL. He held no role that was "inherently" notable enough to guarantee him a Wikipedia article without passing WP:GNG on the sourcing -- but two of the three footnotes here are from The Political Graveyard and a Blogspot blog, which are not notability-building sources at all, and while there is one real newspaper article about his death, that isn't enough all by itself. Notability is also not inherited, so he isn't automatically entitled to an article just because his father has one.
Given that the subject died over 120 years ago, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with much better access to repositories of media coverage from circa 1900 than I've got can find the depth of coverage needed to salvage it, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a lot more than just one acceptable source. Bearcat ( talk) 08:18, 16 October 2022 (UTC) reply

and more. Djflem ( talk) 14:24, 16 October 2022 (UTC) reply

I did every ounce of WP:BEFORE that I was able to do with the resources for 120-year-old American media coverage that are actually available to me, and you are not entitled to imply any negligence on my part. You've got access to New York Times archives? Great. I don't. Bearcat ( talk) 17:07, 16 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Neutral: I'm torn on this one. On one end, I feel it can be redirected to John Hay; there isn't much going on here as this is someone who died when their career was still nascent. On the other end, however, there is some significant coverage on him on newspapers.com, such as [47]. Curbon7 ( talk) 17:51, 16 October 2022 (UTC) reply
    Coverage of him is also limited to 1899-1901, so it is a needle-in-haystack situation. Curbon7 ( talk) 17:52, 16 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment His death played a major role in John Hay’s emotional decline, I believe it’s worth it’s own page. Additionally, there’s enough information on it unique to him that redirecting to Hay Sr. seems unhelpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeacockShah ( talk • contribs) 19:42, 16 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect to John Hay. What little there is to say about this person is of encyclopedic significance only to the biography of the father. BD2412 T 20:58, 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! 08:32, 23 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep passes GNG with signiicant coverage. Article needs expansion. Djflem ( talk) 11:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • I'm erring on a weak keep here but am still unsure. I've found quite a bit of information on his appointment as US consul at Pretoria during the Boer War - some of which I've added and this is not even all of it. The trouble is, all of these books are from the early 1900s and are probably not especially reliable (much like old newspapers). They do indicate notability but there seems to be nothing since that time written about him. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 23:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC) Moving to Keep after seeing this source [48]. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 03:33, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    Contemporary newspapers are generally just as reliable as modern newspapers. If this weren't the case, many of our articles on historical figures would be fucked. You just have to be aware and a bit more careful. Curbon7 ( talk) 00:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    I probably wasn't clear - I meant that you need a little more caution and they tend to hyperbolism. (I wouldn't say they are as reliable as modern newspapers though.) The recent Doug Coldwell incident shows the problems that arise when resting solely on old newspaper and book sources. Far better for an RS to have done the cautious reading of old sources and written something up for us to use. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 03:16, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    Fair enough. Curbon7 ( talk) 03:27, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep based on the above discussion, his death made international news. Bearian ( talk) 02:48, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. There is enough evidence presented here of significant independent coverage to demonstrate that the subject passes WP:BASIC/ WP:SIGCOV. There's no esstential policy based reason to merge the content into the article on his father; although there may be optional editorial reasons to do so. For that reason, any merger should be made through discussion at WP:MERGEPROP, and not through this AFD. 4meter4 ( talk) 05:00, 7 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_October_31&oldid=1120653728"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 30 November 01 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:49, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Haviland, Arizona

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

Appears to be a rail stop, and I got a few hits consistent with that, plus one person "from" there. Old enough topos show a couple of trackside buildings that could be anything; slightly more recent ones show a short siding. Nothing there now except rails and ties and ballast. Mangoe ( talk) 23:55, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per WP:V and WP:GEOLAND, no reliable sources cited for the claim this is a populated place, and there don't seem to be any. Hut 8.5 18:27, 3 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, I couldn't find sources that showed it's a populated place and so it fails WP:GEOLAND and I couldn't find sufficient sources for WP:GNG. Suonii180 ( talk) 13:38, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Here is all the information I could find on Haviland, hopefully this can help with a consensus. There is a rest stop named Haviland, but again, this does not mean it's populated; although I did find posts for land listed for sale in the Haviland category, so that could mean that people are trading land and maybe living on it in Haviland. This person did some trainspotting at Haviland, but I think he just used his GPS's location data to say where is was. Could you link the reference that said someone was from there? I couldn't find it. BhamBoi ( talk) 18:20, 7 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. G5. Whack a sock. If an established editor sees value in a redirect, this closure does not preclude that Star Mississippi 01:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC) reply

2012 Henryville tornado

2012 Henryville tornado (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is a near-exact copy of the section at Tornado outbreak of March 2–3, 2012 and is essentially a WP:CONTENTFORK. The creator of this article seems to be the same IP hopping user who has been making very similar edits across numerous IP addresses for months now. No reason exists to have a duplicate article on a tornado that already has copious information elsewhere (much of which is word for word the same). United States Man ( talk) 23:50, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Conditional Delete: The nominator is correct on this being a near-exact copy of the section at Tornado outbreak of March 2–3, 2012. That said, it is not a true exact copy with some (not much) new information. I would want this deleted unless the section in the main article was shortened some (not much) & at least 1/3 of the article is new information previously not from the section prior to article creator. If those could be met, then consider this a weak keep, but if those are not met by the end of this AfD, then consider this a delete. Elijahandskip ( talk) 00:08, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I'm not sure exactly which way to lean on this matter. Content-wise, there is more than would go in a section at an outbreak article, and this tornado, if I recall correctly, received much of the media attention from this outbreak. One editor did mention suspicions of sockpuppetry. If confirmed, this article could qualify for deletion under WP:G5. If this article is not kept, I would favor a redirect or merge instead of deletion since there is a suitable redirect target. TornadoLGS ( talk) 02:36, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Neutral I could see the tornado getting an article and it did get recognition from The Weather Channel's "Tornado Alley" show. Also, the tornado was immediately followed by another storm with extremely large hail as well as a second, albeit weak, tornado that hit the same areas. That being said, it can't be a direct copy of an already well written article section, which is why I'm going neutral. ChessEric ( talk · contribs) 03:14, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Indiana, and Kentucky. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 06:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Update: The editor who reverted United States Man’s bold blanking/redirect on notability and wanted the AfD was blocked as a potential sock. The editor (different IP user) who created the article was not blocked. Because of that, I think we need to let the AfD run its course since G5 doesn’t play a role here. (Pinging TornadoLGS as they mentioned the G5 pending SPI.) Elijahandskip ( talk) 13:54, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
170.24.150.113 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) is now editing in this same area ( Tornado outbreak of March 2–3, 2012) and is probably also a sock. 148.76.137.251 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) may be as well, since the user already seems to know about AfC, page attribution, and content forks upon joining. United States Man ( talk) 14:05, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
As is 71.125.36.50 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS). This may require another request at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Andrew5 @ Elijahandskip:. United States Man ( talk) 14:08, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
I heard about it from someone in my school, so I figured I'd bravely trim it. You seem to really be trying to make every IP who wants to save this article look like a sock perhaps to get it deleted. 170.24.150.113 ( talk) 14:20, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
If, indeed, you are a different person, the pattern of an IP-hopping editor, confirmed at SPI, is real. TornadoLGS ( talk) 20:20, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
That IP address is from the same place as a previously blocked sock address. If this is a different person then the sock is the one that told that person about the article (or it’s just the same person). United States Man ( talk) 20:37, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
This is a shared IP address, belonging to Plainview Old Bethpage John F. Kennedy High School. Over 2,000 people are here every day. 170.24.150.113 ( talk) 12:02, 2 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Issues should be fixed. Saw this at AFD as I was looking through this outbreak, and figured I’d pitch in. 108.58.9.194 ( talk) 19:39, 2 November 2022 (UTC) reply


  • Comment – This should now qualify as WP:G5 given the Andrew5 SPI here. The closing admin instead chose to semiprotect the page and is still allowing the sock to edit Wikipedia, however. United States Man ( talk) 04:02, 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. Joyous! | Talk 21:36, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Brian Joseph Friel

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

Little to no Significant Coverage; a Google news search for his name with verbatim results including middle name, and without middle name brings only his name in passing mention or another person named Brian Friel. Potentially a GNG fail. External links seem to essentially be WP:PROMO. InvadingInvader ( talk) 18:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Scotland. InvadingInvader ( talk) 18:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Andrew D. Armitage, ‎Dean Tudor (1976). Annual Index to Popular Music Record Reviews 1974. Scarecrow Press. p. 68. does have a listing for the album Second Hand Dealer with info on where to locate published reviews of the album; but unfortunately it's not available for viewing in google books other than snippet view which isn't helpful. It does indicate to me though, that reviews of this artist do exist, but they are likely either not online due to their age, or are behind a paywall. Hopefully some editors skilled in locating music reviews in the UK from the 1970s will participate in this discussion. On a side note, the artist is mostly known as Brian Friel without the middle name. I imagine this title was given to the wiki article because of the more prominent Irish playwright. Best. 4meter4 ( talk) 18:48, 10 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. World Radio History has several short reviews of his debut album in UK and US music industry magazines around 1974-75 - Record Mirror, Walrus! (and again later when the US version came out), Cash Box. The list of guest musicians is pretty impressive. Adam Sampson ( talk) 15:24, 11 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! 20:54, 17 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! 22:26, 24 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Not notable enough. There are thousands if not millions of artist and guitarist. Just because you're one doesn't mean you're notable. I've also seen the references. And there's not a single reliable cite that isn't only a passing mention. Ploreky Have a problem? 17:24, 28 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to hopefully garner more opinions on the status of this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Lacks in-depth coverage to meet WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:09, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete mostly per Ploreky. Even a newspapers.com search on the full name returns just 1 hit, though surely someone even a little notable would get more than that. Otherwise as per others that I can't see how this can pass WP:MUSICBIO. Bungle ( talk • contribs) 20:39, 7 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. JBW ( talk) 21:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC) reply

R.S. Yadav

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

WP:BLP of an academic administrator, not reliably sourced as passing our notability criteria for academics. The only notability claim in evidence here is that he's vice-chancellor of a university, which is not an automatic notability freebie in and of itself in the absence of a demonstrated pass of WP:GNG and/or WP:NACADEMIC -- but this just résumés a handful of jobs without demonstrating the significance of his work in any of them, and is referenced to a single short blurb announcing his appointment as vice-chancellor, which is not enough to get him over GNG all by itself if it's all the coverage he has.
As I'm not an expert in locating Indian sourcing, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody can find enough solid sourcing to improve the article, but nothing here is enough in its current state. Bearcat ( talk) 16:36, 10 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Haryana. Bearcat ( talk) 16:36, 10 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Vice-chancellor of a university, in the Indian system, is the person heading the whole university. (In contrast, chancellor is a purely ceremonial position.) So if Baba Mastnath University were a major university, it would pass WP:PROF#C6. But I am not convinced that Baba Mastnath is significant enough to count for that. — David Eppstein ( talk) 16:47, 10 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Given the state of the article, redirecting to Baba Mastnath University might work, where a couple of sentences note on the current VC would be appropriate. Espresso Addict ( talk) 02:02, 11 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Meets criteria #6 of WP:PROF as Vice Chancellor (i.e. top admin position) of an accredited university. Detailed information at WP:PROF says that publications of the institution where the post is held are considered a reliable source. s such they meet notability. Having said that, the page needs a lot of work. Gusfriend ( talk) 06:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC) reply
    C6 requires "a major academic institution", not merely an accredited one. — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:20, 11 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! 20:17, 17 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! 22:26, 24 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Comment I can't see anything on google about that Guy, all it shows is this bus station. But if I'll vote, it would be Soft Delete. Ploreky Have a problem? 17:26, 28 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Soft Deletion is not a possible option here. Liz Read! Talk! 06:48, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Thanks for telling me Ploreky Have a problem? 08:29, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to consider whether a redirect is preferable to keeping this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 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. Joyous! | Talk 06:22, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Jack Pizzey (broadcaster)

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

I'm not sure that this broadcaster is notable. I don't see that he meets WP:FILMMAKER or WP:GNG. I have carried out WP:BEFORE and added three references, plus one from a commented-out section of the article. However two of those are passing references and the other two depend on interviews with Pizzey himself. The article previously had two references, of which one is now a deadlink and the other discusses Pizzey as the husband of Erin Pizzey. Am wondering if his documentary, Sweat of the Sun, Tears of the Moon (currently a redirect to the article on him), which won a Logie Award, is notable but he is not. Article has been tagged as needing more citations since 2014. This is not the same person as Jack Pizzey, Premier of Queensland. Tacyarg ( talk) 19:46, 17 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! 22:01, 24 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! 23:16, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep As per Piecesofuk. But I agree that the article needs improvement. Fifthapril ( talk) 03:37, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. Agree with PatGallacher, Piecesofuk, Fifthapril. I'll look to improve the article. Cabrils ( talk) 23:02, 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 redirect to Marquess of Downshire. Liz Read! Talk! 07:00, 2 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Nicholas Hill, 9th Marquess of Downshire

Nicholas Hill, 9th Marquess of Downshire (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

British nobleman, fails WP:BIO: I found very little coverage in reliable sources for "Nicholas Hill", "Marquess of Downshire", and "Nick Downshire", and the little I found was passing mentions. British nobles aren't inherently notable. He also never sat in the House of Lords, so he cannot qualify for WP:NPOL either.

My source assessment follows:

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
"Animalcare Group plc Board Details".. Retrieved 1 August 2015. No Standard bio from an org where the subject of the article used to be a director. [1] No ✘ No
"The Most Hon the Marquess of Downshire". Debrett's Retrieved 1 April 2013. No Only namechecked ✘ No
Rob Evans, Grouse moors owners threatened government with legal action Ruffer co-founder steps down, The Guardian, 20 February 2020 No Passing mention ✘ No
[ People: Bolser; James Heal; Womble Bond Dickinson; and more], The Business Desk, 4 May 2022 No Passing mention ✘ No
Grace Newton, Clifton Castle: Privately owned stately home in the Yorkshire Dales to open its gardens to the public this weekend, The Yorkshire Post, 10 June 2022 No Passing mention ✘ No
Christopher Woodhouse, New wardens appointed for Hillsborough Fort, Belfast Telegraph, 31 July 2021 No Passing mention ✘ No
Arthur Francis Nicholas Wills Ian Hill, 9th Marquess of Downshire1, thepeerage.com No Deprecated self-published peerage website. ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}.

Pilaz ( talk) 21:00, 24 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! 23:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect Marquess of Downshire, I couldn't find sources that makes the subject pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 ( talk) 23:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect as above. Completely non-notable individual. TheLongTone ( talk) 14:52, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:31, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Gentle Fund Organization

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

Last AfD was 12 years ago with low participation. This still fails WP:ORG for lack of significant coverage. LibStar ( talk) 21:57, 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 deleted as G5. (non-admin closure) —   HELLKNOWZ ∣  TALK 10:18, 4 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Mister Mummy

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

Fails to meet GNG Patr2016 ( talk) 21:42, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete lacks WP:SIGCOV as references are generally just a few sentences about the trailer coming out. Does not meet WP:NFILM nor arguably WP:NFF also. LizardJr8 ( talk) 22:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: We can't find any news as it is an upcoming movie so I think that we have to wait for 11 November 2022 because I think that on that day new news article will be published which can make it notable film. Contributor008 ( talk) 09:02, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Temporary keep or draftify and lets see what press does this film get after 11 November. Insight 3 ( talk) 14:36, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Draftify:Draftify it now and then send it to Wikipedia:Articles for creation when it will release. Contributor008 ( talk) 15:28, 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! 22:31, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply

2008 Cyprus Four Nations Football Tournament

2008 Cyprus Four Nations Football Tournament (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Following the deletion of 1998 Cyprus International Tournament ( AfD), I intended to bring this here but never got around to it. My concerns are that this friendly tournament doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSEVENT. Also worth noting that WP:NOTDATABASE states that merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Also GNG states that a topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. EU Football is a stats database with low standards for inclusion and the other cited source 4 nations appears to relate to a totally different tournament. I am not seeing anything in cursory searches to indicate that this topic received detailed media coverage. Given the clear consensus to delete the 1998 article, I'm not seeing any reason as to why this one should be any different and the WP:BURDEN should be on those wishing to have a stand-alone article to provide evidence of why this topic needs one.

If anyone finds multiple examples of detailed reliable media coverage in any language, I will happily withdraw this AfD. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:40, 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! 22:30, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Aquaphor water filters

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

Non-notable business. Sources cited are just routine business reporting, and a search finds only more of the same and the usual social media and directory listings, etc. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ORGCRIT. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 21:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, and Estonia. DoubleGrazing ( talk) 21:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. I wrote a comment at Talk:Aquaphor water filters. The current refs are routine and fail WP:CORPDEPTH, though this slightly longer but is still press release like, chiefly quotes, and might still be trivial per CORPDEPTH. Further, a company's notability isn't inherited from reviews for its product. Per WP:PRODUCTREV: Reviews that narrowly focus on a particular product or function without broader context (e.g. review of a particular meal without description of the restaurant as a whole) do not count as significant sources, this is the case here. My WP:BEFORE search found lots of pieces on Google News, but they seem to be press releases/routine announcements or reviews about its products that also fail WP:CORPDEPTH, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Therefore, this fails WP:NCORP. VickKiang (talk) 21:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Per VickKiang, who raised many of the same points as I would have, so there's no need to repeat those same points. I looked for additional sourcing and could find nothing of substance, and the sourcing currently in the article is insufficient. Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. - Aoidh ( talk) 02:11, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above, and as a run of the mill business. Bearian ( talk) 02:19, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails WP:CORPDEPTH Devoke water 20:06, 7 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. Joyous! | Talk 21:51, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply

BeyondSims

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

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 24#BeyondSims. Pinging people involved in RfD: A7V2, Pizzaplayer219, Mdewman6, and Jay. Clyde! Franklin! 21:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: I don’t really have any experience in AFD but looking at the article, there are only about two reliable sources, while the other sources rely on primary sourcing. Pizzaplayer219 Talk Contribs 21:04, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Video games, and Websites. Skynxnex ( talk) 21:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete weakly sourced fancruft. LizardJr8 ( talk) 22:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - A routine fansite that fails WP:GNG. The GamesRader piece is a somewhat trivial mention of a past incarnation of the website, but even if it was extremely in-depth, it by itself certainly is not enough to establish notability. - Aoidh ( talk) 02:34, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Belated ping with apologies to IceWelder, who WP:BLARed this. —  Clyde! Franklin! 07:07, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    Thanks for the ping! The BLAR might have happened five years ago but the sourcing situation remains unchanged. WP:CSE only returns three hits of this site being mentioned trivially. Incidentally, all three even refer to the same event. Hence, I would also support Delete. IceWelder [ ✉] 08:16, 7 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. Later comments found some relevant mentions in outside sources, indicating that this cuisine is "a thing." Joyous! | Talk 14:51, 8 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Sylheti cuisine

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

WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. None of the sources in this article point towards a distinct Sylheti cusine; rather they talk about certain dishes which originate from the Sylhet district or happen to be popularly eaten in Sylhet. There is no source which mentions Sylheti cuisine to be notable in its own right. The article is also poorly written, and mentions unrelated content such as pop culture and information about nutrition. This article should be deleted. UserNumber ( talk) 20:33, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. UserNumber ( talk) 20:33, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 October 31. UserNumber ( talk) 20:33, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: The article is also similar to the Chittagonian cuisine article which was deleted for the same reasons which I highlighted. Perhaps @ Alexandermcnabb: and @ SnowFire: can take a look at this too. UserNumber ( talk) 20:37, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
    • Procedural comment. UserNumber, if you're going to ping people in a previous AFD, please either ping all participants or none of them - you've currently only pinged "delete" voters which can create some WP:CANVASS concerns. I'll ping them here now so no need to do this yourself, but something to remember for future AFDs. @ UserNumber, Piotrus, Vinegarymass911, Valereee, Mehediabedin, and Spudlace: SnowFire ( talk) 20:54, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I'm less sure about this one. The article needs substantial rewriting to be less promotional, but that's a cleanup matter rather than an AFD one. The Guardian article suggests a book discusses it even if it is talking about cooks from Sylhet rather than Sylheti cuisine necessarily (just as there's no guarantee that every Italian cooks Italian food, not all Sylheti cooks cook Sylheti food, right?). However, "The Statesman" directly says "The reason being a reasonable percentage of the restaurants in Brick Lane are run by Bangladeshis from Sylhet, whose spoken words and culinary preferences differ from the rest of the Bangladeshis." If true, that means that Sylheti cuisine really is different from Bangladeshi cuisine in general. And while greatcurryrecipes.com doesn't appear to be a super-high quality site, it is discussing a dish called "Sylheti beef", which is a promising sign that this really is a cuisine type. Haven't exhaustively checked all the references, but it looks like this article might be salvageable. SnowFire ( talk) 21:05, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I am in complete agreement with SnowFire... There are a lot of references online, although RS are, at least on the surface, scant. Transactions in Taste: The Collaborative Lives of Everyday Bengali Food is, however, a nice, neat reference ( this one is a blog and so isn't, which is a shame) and there's enough bouncing around out there, including websites for 'Sylheti Bangladeshi' restaurants in the UK to convince me that this is a thing. However, the article itself is a mess of unsourced OR - but then, altogether now, AfD isn't cleanup. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 04:02, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    • @ Alexandermcnabb: The vast majority of those restaurants serve Indian food, and even advertise as such. It is merely just owned by Sylheti Bangladeshi businessmen. UserNumber ( talk) 14:10, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
      I'm not going to get deep into it, because it's sort of irrelevant and NOT RS, but here's a review of an 'authentic Sylheti restaurant' in London - one of a number in Brick Lane - selling easily identifiable and uniquely Sylheti dishes. This, BTW, IS an RS outlet talking Sylheti food. I think, in short, we have 'a thing' and it is a notable thing, at that. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 14:58, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Since I was pinged. One mention of the term in GScholar. Several in GBooks. Borderline, I'll not vote for now. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete No any reliable source. If there is please ping me. Kasar Wuya ( talk) 10:24, 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 no consensus. JBW ( talk) 21:16, 5 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Caballero Universal

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

Fails WP:GNG, with only one reliable source and no other clear sources online. JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs) 06:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Through a quick search, I found several other sources in Spanish about the pageant: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] While some of them are passing mentions, especifically about Spain's candidate Pablo Estrada, there seems to be more coverage than suggested. -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 09:22, 10 October 2022 (UTC) reply
    Thank you for finding these sources. The last one is a tourism office, not sure if that is reliable, whilst source one is largely an interview. I can't access source four due to an ad blocker that I can't be bothered to disable, and two and three just don't pass WP:SIGCOV. JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs) 09:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:48, 17 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep per my previous comment, as it seems that the article meets WP:GNG by a small margin. I think this is even more understandable given how recent the contest is, although on the other hand this could mean a case of WP:TOOSOON. If other editors agree that the page does not meet the threshold, the article can be deleted. -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 12:44, 19 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:10, 24 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:34, 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! 08:43, 4 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Someday (2021 film)

Someday (2021 film) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:NFILM as no reviews found. All current citations are about the director and not the actual film. Notability isn't inherited.

PROD removed with "Restore per WP:GNG. AfD it if you like" DonaldD23 talk to me 12:46, 17 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:46, 17 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per GNG. The film's history, including its premiere at international film festivals, story, and information about its direction, are all available online. Plenty of sources exist. Shahid • Talk2me 13:03, 17 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Provide three, then... Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 14:05, 17 October 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Alexandermcnabb: They're cited in the article. Shahid • Talk2me 15:08, 17 October 2022 (UTC) reply
They're really not. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 16:31, 17 October 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Alexandermcnabb: see References section please. All reliable sources and not just passing mentions. Shahid • Talk2me 17:27, 17 October 2022 (UTC) reply
As stated in the AfD nomination...these are all about the director and not the film itself. We need reviews. DonaldD23 talk to me 18:25, 17 October 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Alexandermcnabb: No, they're about the film, otherwise I wouldn't know what the film is about. Reviews are important for WP:NFLIM, but this article has WP:GNG going for it. Shahid • Talk2me 19:12, 17 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Bad film title for SEO - there are any number of 'Somedays' out there dating back to 1935. Many are notable. This one - a short - isn't. Screening at an international film festival most certainly isn't notability - we are guided by WP:GNG and WP:NFILM, neither of which this film passes. Not today, not someday, not anyday. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 14:05, 17 October 2022 (UTC) reply
    This is the first time I see such reasoning, namely the film's title is problematic. We are guided by WP:GNG and that's why the article is notable. Shahid • Talk2me 15:11, 17 October 2022 (UTC) reply
    While the title complaint observation or WP:SEO is a bit strange, IMHO Alexandermcnabb raises IMHO a valid point that the film festivals are minor, which you fail to address. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 05:26, 18 October 2022 (UTC) reply
    It was merely an observation rather than a complaint... there are a number of other films called 'Someday', so that's a strange choice for a film title in today's world. Purely observation, by no means an assertion that in someway this violates WP policy or standards. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 05:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Alexandermcnabb: Yeah, I agree. Going to go off-topic here about my subjective POV- the film's title is mundane and dull, and my BEFORE search found lots of films with the same title, making searching difficult, so I get what you are saying (has to add 2021 short/2021 film) ... of course this has nothing to do with AfDs and I can see someone mistaking that as part of a rationale but indeed an interesting observation. VickKiang (talk) 05:34, 18 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Appears to be adequately sourced and meet guidelines.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:32, 17 October 2022 (UTC) reply
    All citations are about the director and not the film. How is that adequately sourced? DonaldD23 talk to me 18:26, 17 October 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Donaldd23: Ref no. 6: "Shefali Shah's directorial debut Someday to be screened at the 18th Indian Film Festival Stuttgart" - it's about the film. Obviously when sources provide information about films, their director is mentioned because they are the presentor of their work. Shahid • Talk2me 19:15, 17 October 2022 (UTC) reply

*Delete per nom. Sourcing on the director is insufficient, ref 6 is a routine announcement, only describing the official logline (sorry, but that's what the ref says) and then a quote by Shah. Then this ref- a minor announcement on a film festival selection, nowhere near passing WP:NFILM's major award criteria, and then a plot overview (possibly an analysis but nowhere near SIGCOV). Per WP:GNG, Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources. IMHO this falls into announcements columns, though it's perfectly reasonable if you disagree. My WP:BEFORE search found this, a similar routine story with almost the same quotes. Shshshsh, we've disagreed in the past, I appreciate your efforts in content creation and saving articles from AfD, and apologies that I have to vote delete for an article you created, if you could demonstrate more refs please add them here, but any more comments without adding refs probably won't persuade me to change my vote, so let's respectfully disagree. (Another minor note: I've procedurally marked this as reviewed still during NPP as it's already in AfD, but that doesn't reflect that I would like to keep the article). Many thanks! Update: Two editors have been stating that Cinestaan is RS. IMO it's debatable that it's a reliable source, but it definitely passes the independent, secondary, and significant coverage requirements. Therefore, generously there is one source counting towards GNG or NFILM criteria 1. IMHO the new sources added, 1, 2, 3, still mainly cover the plot, information on the director, and general info on the award. However, some editors could reasonably view some of these new pieces as meeting WP:SIGCOV. Therefore, I'm at Weak Delete to Neutral. VickKiang (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2022 (UTC) reply

  • @ VickKiang: It's not a minor announcement actually - the article provides both an announcement and infomration about the film. It's a substantial article. But we're not going to see eye the eye so let's save ourselves the time to argue. Shahid • Talk2me 07:48, 18 October 2022 (UTC) reply
    Agree with your last sentence- let's respectfully disagree and thanks! VickKiang (talk) 07:51, 18 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:08, 24 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist. Opinion seems evenly split on whether or not this film can be considered notable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:30, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. This just barely scrapes by for me. But with the new source, I think it meets our criteria. -- Mike  🗩 18:10, 2 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Notable enough with sufficient RS coverage. Krimuk2.0 ( talk) 10:03, 3 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. New sources indicate enough notability to meet criteria here. Joyous! | Talk 20:57, 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 keep Although there's merit to QuietHere's merger comment, it doesn't appear that consensus is going to form at this time. This does not preclude a future discussion as to whether it makes sense to cover Bartholomew within the work for which he's primarily notable. Star Mississippi 01:40, 8 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Joshua Bartholomew

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

Does not appear to be notable beyond his writing credit on " Everything Is Awesome". The rest of the coverage in the article is either from sources I wouldn't guarantee to be reliable (such as a non-notable local paper from Alliston, Ontario), isn't actually about him (such as the Deadline article on the cancelled TV pilot that doesn't mention his name at all), or is just blatantly unreliable like Ron Sexsmith's own website. Several sources are dead though findable through the Web Archive but even all those didn't add much promise to this article, and I couldn't find any additional coverage either. QuietHere ( talk) 09:59, 24 October 2022 (UTC) reply

See also the AfDs on the duo he's in and the other half of that duo. QuietHere ( talk) 10:04, 24 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! 19:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep I think he just meets GNG, there's also this non-trivial piece by the Canadian Press in the Toronto Star [7] about his Grammy nomination. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:09, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I think the Toronto Star piece above pushes it over the edge. Nfitz ( talk) 23:56, 5 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with Everything is Awesome. This is a WP:BLP with a lot of unsourced personal information, as well as information sourced to a promotional packet from the artist's website that's no longer online ( [8]), information sourced to an internet forum that is no longer online (and not archived), and a whole lot of coverage of Everything is Awesome which mentions the artist in passing or not at all. I think nearly all the personal info needs to be removed for failing WP:BLP (it's probably accurate, but not verifiable). The creator and primary author of this page, User:Halle Leah, may have a COI—almost all of their edits have been on topics related to this artist, his partner, and their collaborative moniker specifically (as well as a couple other musicians); I suspect there's UPE here and that this page was created by a publicist (the original AfD here appears to have been closed with the conversation mostly centering around WP:BITE instead of the actual notability of the page). Notability seems borderline; he's definitely significantly covered in reliable independent sources, but only two of them, both about the same event. Per WP:COMPOSER, Where possible, composers or lyricists with insufficient verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article should be merged into the article about their work. Dylnuge ( Talk • Edits) 01:36, 6 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Seems to scrape in, thanks to the Toronto Star coverage. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:04, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply
I wouldn't be surprised if this closes as keep given the number of votes, but I'd like to clearly state my support for Dylnuge's merge option. The Toronto Star piece is an interview which is always hazy (see WP:INTERVIEW), and most of the material in it is regarding Everything is Awesome anyway so it'd be more useful for that page. The CBC piece that Beccaynr linked would be more useful to this page, but it's also awkward because of being interview-based writing. I just think the merge would be safer, and it would preserve what good material there is while dumping the unverifiable/primary-sourced parts which need chopped off anyway. QuietHere ( talk) 09:21, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Per WP:BASIC, Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject. However, when there is secondary context or commentary in addition to an interview, this can be used to support notability for a BLP. And there does not appear to be a place to put a biography of this subject in the Everything is Awesome article that would be WP:DUE, because there appears to be sufficient verifiable career information per WP:COMPOSER, unrelated to the song. Beccaynr ( talk) 14:17, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply
I generally agree with this read (though I disagree on the ultimate action to take, I don't disagree with anyone else's policy-based arguments for keeping the article; notability is maybe debatable here but I don't think it's a clear fail, and no one is using the primary sources to argue notability). I'll just add that there are some more stringent guidelines on primary sourcing BLP info, specifically WP:BLPSELFPUB, where it stipulates the article is not based primarily on such sources. Honestly I think this one is borderline and it's probably fine to keep it around, but uncited and poorly sourced BLP stuff always gives me a bit of pause. Dylnuge ( Talk • Edits) 19:31, 7 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. Policy based input indicates there isn't sufficient coverage Star Mississippi 01:42, 8 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Daily Talib

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

Lacks significant coverage with independent content. The citations added are not reliable. Fails to meet WP:NCORP Deletionlist ( talk) 13:37, 9 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Strongly Keep All refrences are from Gov and verified sources , so strongly keep this article , and also the auction was mad from the new user talk the user is new regestired user and just deleting the pages without any information

Daily talib is a regesterd News Papaer in Pakistan , so there is no way to delete this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsadnanhere ( talk • contribs) 19:00, 15 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Comment - Found 2 sources:
  1. Hum News
  2. Jounalism Pakistan

The point to consider is that it's almost impossible for a newspaper to get direct significant coverage in other rival newspapers, so notability for a newspaper should be evaluated under separate criteria. Insight 3 ( talk) 07:24, 16 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:15, 16 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • STRONG KEEP This article now has 3 SOLID references. Have fixed and updated all 3 archived references – one of them is from the Government of Pakistan, Audit Bureau of Circulation. Ngrewal1 ( talk) 23:50, 17 October 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Ngrewal1, The government archive link does not have the subject's name mentioned in their list. - 2409:4071:4E1A:83B7:E06:B440:CD4B:4F8E ( talk) 15:19, 18 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: I've reviewed the latest and all the other archives for the government reference link, and was not able to find the newspaper's name in the list. The other sources are not reliable, and the Hum News link looks promotional/paid. I request the admin make a decision based on facts, not the vote count. The links mentioned here are unreliable, and the facts can't be verified. The subject's website is also based on a WordPress template with random news articles from over a few months. The subject (Newspaper) claims to be having continuous publishing for over 17 years and has no reference/mentions about them on the web other than a few paid articles. - 2409:4071:4E1A:83B7:E06:B440:CD4B:4F8E ( talk) 15:19, 18 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Reply This is exactly why I tried to be THOROUGH and even gave the (Scroll down on the List for Talib (Urdu) newspaper Serial No. 741 entry). It does not say 'Daily Talib', but says 'Talib (Urdu)' newspaper. We can knit pick all we want because, for some reason, some of us are trying desperately to get this article deleted. Let us see the proof here that the references are 'paid' instead of throwing accusations around all over the place. The 'Closing Person' of this article will surely see what I am talking about. Ngrewal1 ( talk) 15:48, 18 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Correct , in Pakistan The News Paper Name is Talib , in Urdu Language it,s called , Roznama Talib , and in English Words , Called Daily Talib , as This is Daily News Paper , Itsadnanhere ( talk) 20:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC) reply
No Need for the Web sources , as this is not website , this is Newspaper , for news paper only one Gov Rerfrence link is enough :) Itsadnanhere ( talk) 20:21, 18 October 2022 (UTC) reply
The facts can't be verified from the Government link alone. The other two references are from public directories; anyone can add their listing on these sites.
Also, something to note: If you search about the editor and their other persons' names mentioned in the Wikipedia article on Google, you can see that digital marketeers run it, and you will find several PR articles about them, and the newspaper which they claim is owned by them.
Here are some of the links that I found on the web.
  • Articles about the Editor-in-Chief/Digital Marketeer
https://www.latestly.com/world/successful-pakistani-entrepreneur-nasir-shah-wani-urdu-live-pakistan-e-group-and-chief-editor-of-talib-tells-how-:::he-became-a-multi-millionaire-2601478.html
https://www.pktribune.com/nasir-shah-wani-shares-his-story-of-making-million-dollar-company-through-urdu-live-pakistan-e-group.html
https://www.google.com/search?q=Nasir+Shah+Wani
  • PR article about the Newspaper
https://theprint.in/theprint-valuead-initiative/media-group-daily-talib-goes-international-will-cater-readers-in-3-major-languages/906679/
I feel this might be a defunct newspaper that stopped publication long back. A few marketers from Pakistan are trying to impersonate the original brand and want to get a Wikipedia page for some benefits.
This is concerning and such incidents are on the rise on Wikipedia. Plus, having a newspaper alone does not indicate that it is notable.
Wikipedia user Itsadnanhere has created two such articles in total, out of which one got deleted in an AFD recently, please refer Burj News, and what concerns me is that 'Muhammad Iftikhar,' in the article says is the main admin, and in the infobox, it says he's the editor, the same 'Muhammad Iftikhar' was the founder of the recently deleted Burj News. I believe Itsadnanhere has COI with these subjects/individuals.
I request the admin to review all the points mentioned above. In the future, anyone can misuse a gov link of a defunct website/newspaper listing and claim that they run it by manipulating the web using PR/paid articles, and this alone doesn't make them notable.
My logical thinking is that a media outlet or a newspaper that has been operating for 17 years continuously (as the article claims) should have some form of online presence or media mentions, but here there is none. The only pieces you would find are from 2021; they are either direct PR or indirect (like Hum News).
Hum News and other articles about the newspaper or the persons related to it have their PR stories written in a promotional format. A similar writing style can be seen in the Hum News article, which is why I believe it might be an indirect PR article. (with no disclaimer or such) - 2409:4071:4E15:CADE:EC3D:86DD:1B2:D3D9 ( talk) 23:37, 18 October 2022 (UTC) reply
No need for your Attention and advise ,
if an admin need to see the official documents all documents are avalible for the transfering of this newspaper to the current CEO Nasir Shah Wani , the PR link you have provided you is about CEO not for the newspaper Itsadnanhere ( talk) 11:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC) reply
and by the way you are an indian user , and you don,t know about the newspaper criteria in pakistan , so leave these decission on Pakistani Administrative , and Wikipedia pakistani users Itsadnanhere ( talk) 11:29, 19 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Please be respectful here, it is a discussion, and I'm just trying to add my thoughts. We are not against you or the media outlet; people and organizations depend on the information found on Wikipedia. I'm just making sure everything is factual. And one more thing: Are you affiliated with the media outlet? Or the previous AFD article? How can you show the official documents to the Wikipedia admin? Please clarify. - 2409:4071:2084:BD46:E4C6:21FA:B73D:7F91 ( talk) 15:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC) reply
if you are expert you can see the official documents on the gov website , about the newspaper certification , and documentation , unfortunately the official documents are not able to see from outside the pakistan , and i am not affiliated with the media outlet , i just know about this news paper , becase it is located in my country and city , thanks Itsadnanhere ( talk) 09:27, 20 October 2022 (UTC) reply
check the gov link of this newspaper circulation
https://abc.gov.pk/Detail/NTZiMzk1ZTgtZDgyMS00YzdhLThmODAtNTg0MTkyNmJmODdj
if you are not able to access this link , try to open via proxy and use pakistan ip Itsadnanhere ( talk) 09:33, 20 October 2022 (UTC) reply
This is the same gov link we discussed in the above discussion, and the facts can't be verified from this link alone, and the name is generic. Anyway, let's now leave it all to the admin to decide. 122.171.18.15 ( talk) 11:25, 20 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Anyone can discuss the article, from Pakistan or elsewhere. That's how English wikipedia works. Oaktree b ( talk) 13:03, 24 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as per Insight3, in Pakistan media groups don't cover each other significantly and it's very rare. So whatever sources we have are enough for its notability. Muneebll ( talk) 14:55, 20 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:43, 24 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete no RS, most are trivial mentions, the ABC is simply auditing their circulation, so is nothing more than a list. Rest are non-useful. Oaktree b ( talk) 13:01, 24 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep already mentioned that in Pakistan media groups don't cover each other significantily

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:13, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep already mentioned that in Pakistan media groups don't cover each other significantily — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.183.157.120 ( talk) 07:04, 3 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails GNG. The subject lacks secondary & primay sources. There are no mentions about the newspaper, and It doesn't look notable. Tatupiplu' talk 08:37, 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. If an editor wishes to undertake merging, the page can be undeleted and redirected. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 03:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Lune (1799 ship)

Lune (1799 ship) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of any notability, a run-of-the-mill whaling ship without any noteworthy history. Fram ( talk) 12:24, 24 October 2022 (UTC) reply

*Redirect to Whaling in the United Kingdom as an alternative to deletion. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk) 18:44, 25 October 2022 (UTC) Merge appropriate detail, with refs, into Lune (ship). 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk) 03:47, 27 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Not a valid target, as there is no mention of the subject there. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 19:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC) reply
It is mentioned at Lune (ship). Do you have any reason to oppose merging or redirecting there? 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk) 19:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Merging into disambiguation pages is not appropriate. Disambiguations are not for everything by a certain name, just the notable examples. Wikipedia:Disambiguation dos and don'ts says Don't include entries without a blue link. It doesn't get more clear than that. What you are suggesting flies in the face of policy. I'm disappointed that I have to explain basics of policy to editors who should really know better. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 19:37, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Okay, so why not redirect instead of merge? (I did mention both as options) 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk) 19:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Trainsandotherthings - Don't be disappointed with others if you don't understand the difference between WP:DAB and WP:SETINDEX. (later) Davidships ( talk) 13:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Can I be disappointed that you don't know how to sign your comments? (I didn't get that ping, because you didn't sign you comment). Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 13:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Wrong. I do know it very well - but just that once forgot (and now rectified). No harm done. Davidships ( talk) 13:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider Merge option
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:11, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete or at worst merge to Lune (ship), which would consist merely of adding references from this article. The sources are certainly RS, but the ship itself is utterly NN, so that I cannot recommend any kind of retention.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 07:04, 2 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Hong Kong Ghost Stories

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

Possible a non-notable film. No third-party coverage of film. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 16:52, 24 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Asia, and Hong Kong. Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 16:52, 24 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: There is a review in the South China Morning Post here, a review in The New Paper and a review in The Straits Times. There is some coverage here. Somebodyidkfkdt ( talk) 14:39, 26 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep. The South China Morning Post is RS per WP:RSP, The Straits Times is situational, but there is consensus that it is generally reliable so long as the Singapore government is not involved in its coverage. As the Singapore government wouldn't be involved in a film review, IMHO this is also a RS in this context. The New Paper is a tabloid and I'm uncertain of whether it counts as a WP:RS, but with two newspapers IMO this borderline passes WP:GNG and also possibly passes WP:NFILM's first criteria- The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics as SCMP and The Straits Tiems are well-known national ones, these critics might be nationally known. VickKiang (talk) 21:15, 27 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! 19:03, 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! 07:04, 2 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Shauna Parsons

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

None of the sources are SIGCOV in RS. She fails the WP:GNG. PROD declined in 2010. Note that, as is typical in this field, the mentioned Emmy is a regional Emmy that does not confer notability. Sammi Brie (she/her •  t • c) 17:54, 24 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! 19:02, 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 draftify. There is a reasonable case that the pages do not resemble articles, and there are doubts as to whether the pages are actually being worked on. However, a reasonable case can be made that major state laws might be notable, and the pages in question are also quite new, so seeing if anyone will work on them in draft space is also a reasonable option, and this option has the most support here.

As per WP:ATD-I, draft space pages may be speedy deleted as abandoned after six months if no progress is made on them, although even that doesn't preclude a fresh start. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:13, 8 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Texas Agriculture Code

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

Statutory laws that aren't notable on their own and might be better condensed into a list like as what's been done at California Codes, such as in Law of Texas or Texas Codes.

Within this nomination, I am additionally nominating the following articles for deletion:

  • "Vernon's Texas Statutes and Codes Annotated" is a (very large multi-volume) book. It is not a database. It contains significant commentary on each of the 27 codes. There are plenty of other sources. James500 ( talk) 00:45, 27 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify - some might be notable enough to be fleshed out. Onel5969 TT me 00:13, 25 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment @ WaddlesJP13:, I think you forgot to do step IV in WP:MULTIAFD when you nominated this list, as only Texas Agriculture Code has the AFD banner at the top. A great many of the others have since been draftified or proposed via the PROD process by reviewers who seem to be unaware that they are being discussed in this AFD. ~ ONUnicorn( Talk| Contribs) problem solving 16:06, 25 October 2022 (UTC) reply
@ ONUnicorn: I did forget to add the AFD banners to those pages, but it looks like they've been draftified by MaxnaCarta, who I discussed these pages and this AFD with over Discord. Waddles  🗩  🖉 17:25, 25 October 2022 (UTC) reply
@ WaddlesJP13: yep. I also support a draftify all of these articles. Can’t hurt to get a consensus in case someone tries to undo all my drafting. They need to be incubated. As a member of the law project I am happy to see articles on statues however analysis is required not merely a stub rehash of the statute. The statute must still be meet GNG. Otherwise we’d become a database of statutes. There’s approximately 500,000 statutes in USA alone. World wide theres probably more statutes than we currently have Wikipedia articles. Not all of them can have an article for obvious reasons. MaxnaCarta ( talk) 19:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC) reply
There are not 500,000 codes in the USA, or anything close to that. The overwhelming majority of statutes are not codes. There are 27 codes in Texas. The total number of codes in the USA is more likely to be on the order of a thousand. And the number of legal encyclopedias, treatises and other books and periodicals is overwhelmingly larger. James500 ( talk) 00:45, 27 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • WP:NOTTEXTBOOK and this is textbook law. If it is civil law, then redirect to the appropriate code book. Atsme 💬 📧 18:59, 26 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This nomination is a proposal to delete something close to half of the entire law of Texas (population: 29 million). The 27 codes constitute most of the statute law of Texas. Each of these codes satisfies GNG easily and by a very wide margin. Every book and periodical article on the law of Texas contains extensive coverage of these codes. For the avoidance of doubt, these codes are cited by many abbreviations (eg Vernon's Tex . . . , Tex Code Ann, Tex Codes Ann, Tex Stat Ann, Tex Rev Stat Ann, Tex Civ Stat Ann, Tex Rev Civ Stat Ann, Tex Civ Proc, Tex R Civ Proc, and many more). These articles do not meet criteria 2 or 3 of the draftification criteria (WP:DRAFTIFY) and should not be draftified. James500 ( talk) 00:45, 27 October 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ James500 Have you reviewed the actual current text of these articles? ~ ONUnicorn( Talk| Contribs) problem solving 15:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all While prose descriptions of state codes with independent coverage may be notable, there are merely tables of contents naming the titles and subtitles and are not appropriate encyclopedic content. It's also generally better to have topical articles like those listed at Law_of_Texas#Topics that describe real-world applications rather than pages for individual sections of the law's text itself. James500's "delete something close to half of the entire law of Texas" is quite the hyperbole when, again, this isn't about the law of Texas but rather just the names of its sections. Reywas92 Talk 20:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • These articles are about the law of Texas. They are not about the "names" of its "sections". While codes have sections, the law of Texas does not have "sections". The codes are themselves are separate pieces of legislation, and are not merely "names". It is pseudolaw to describe these codes as "the names of sections". (That line of argument sounds very similar to the strawman theory. Claiming that the article Texas Code Of Criminal Procedure is about the name of the code, and is not about the code itself, is like claiming that the article George Washington is about the name "George Washington", and is not about the man who was president.) The see also section Law of Texas#Topics is unreferenced, appears to be WP:OR, and is indiscriminately listed in random order. I could understand a desire to, for example, move Texas Code Of Criminal Procedure to Criminal procedure in Texas, but such an article would be wholly or primarily about the code (eg the law of criminal procedure generally consists of the code and cases on the interpretation of the code), the scope of such an article would have to be determined by the scope of the code (there being no other practical way to WP:SPLIT the article Law of Texas), and such an article would have to include most or all of the material already included in these articles. Per WP:ATD, an article should not be deleted merely because it could be, or ought to be, moved to a new page name. The law of Texas consists of legislation and cases. If these articles are deleted, then we are deleting most of the legislation (which is not covered in other Wikipedia articles). And since many of the cases are about the interpretation of the codes, we would be excluding those as well. That would exclude something close to most of the laws of Texas. These articles are not "merely tables of contents". The introductory sections of these articles are not "tables of contents". They are perfectly appropriate descriptions of the codes. All of the text of these articles is written in prose. (They contain no verse or poetry). A list of the titles included in the codes is an appropriate starting point (ie it is good enough for a stub) for summarising the contents of these codes, and is appropriate encyclopedic content, since the lists are placed in context by the introductory sections of the articles. All that is needed is expansion (though some reorganisation might be expedient). James500 ( talk) 01:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC) reply
    Title, sections, don't care. These are not encyclopedia articles and they should be deleted because they are only the names of titles and subtitles. A two- or three-sentence intro is not adequate. Reywas92 Talk 04:19, 28 October 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ James500 The vast majority of commenters so far have argued for these to be moved to draft. You say, "All that is needed is expansion (though some reorganisation might be expedient)." I agree. The disagreement is where the expansion and reorganization should occur, and at what point they will be suitable for mainspace. ~ ONUnicorn( Talk| Contribs) problem solving 13:41, 28 October 2022 (UTC) reply
@ User:ONUnicorn: If you want me to expand these articles, do not move them to the draft space. I will not expand them if they are not in the mainspace. The student who created these pages, and the editor who draftified these pages, have made no further edits to them. James500 ( talk) 02:02, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'm not sure there is much to be decided by editors here as User:MaxnaCarta moved many of this nominated pages to Draft space soon after this AFD was opened. Please do not bypass an AFD discussion by coming to your own consensus via a discussion on Discord. It defeats the purpose of holding an AFD discussion and makes everyone else's participation here irrelevent. AFD is not a place to come to to confirm an editing choice you have already decided to make.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:58, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Liz I did not bypass a discussion intentionally. If you have issues with my conduct they should be address privately not in a deletion discussion. I did not come to my own consensus. I thought I drafted before the AFD had occurred. If I did otherwise it was a mistake, not me “forming my own consensus”. I’ve always respected you for being someone I can ask for help as I try to assist in backend areas, please continue to assume good faith rather than assume I intentionally went over someone’s head to go around a procedure. First, I believe in doing the right thing and would never intentionally do something like that. Second, I’m not invested in trying to get my way. I’d rather get it correct and there’s a million tasks to do so if my desired outcome isn’t reached I move on and do something else. MaxnaCarta ( talk) 22:30, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Oh and to clarify after a look at what I did - here’s what I thought had happened. I thought that some but not all had been nommed for AFD. I thought the ones I was drafting were agreed upon to be drafted in the Discord chat, but didn’t realise I was drafting ones listed here as there was no AFD tag. I’ve bungled something for sure, and I think I need to work more carefully in future but intent is everything and I meant well. I would happily have undone my draft if asked. I did not mean to step on anyones toes. Thanks. MaxnaCarta ( talk) 22:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify the lot. Actually, in my opinion, codes of law can be notable, as are cases. It depends. Bearian ( talk) 02:24, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 20:49, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Mike Carlucci

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

Two sources, one self published. Large amount of content, little to none is cited. WP:NORESUMES TheManInTheBlackHat ( talk) 18:57, 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. Consensus to keep, especially after a mass of sourcing was found by Reywas92 Talk Joyous! | Talk 20:14, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Announcement chime

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

No indication of notability, probably nigh on impossible to find sufficient sources to expand this article. Mattdaviesfsic ( talk) 18:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • delete One sentence description followed by examples which are too obvious as to require explanation. And for that matter, the term is too obvious for explanation. Mangoe ( talk) 00:01, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep, or perhaps there's a way to change the scope or merge this topic. The New York Times has a very good piece on this, and other potential sources I found were [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] Germany [16] [17] Japan [18] [19] [20] [21]. Expanded chime sources include [22] [23] and on coverage voices of announcements includes [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] Reywas92 Talk 00:59, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Plenty of coverage around specific chimes as well as some that compare those of various cities. Plenty to work with. Sounder Bruce 09:20, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, I'm not going to look for the source right now, but at the time this was a prod I found a paper researching how different chime combinations could impart immediate ideas to their audience. For instance to differentiate between routine announcements, warnings, and emergencies. There's certainly an encyclopaedic subject here, it's just waiting for an editor with the enthusiasm to research it. Spinning Spark 16:44, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Reywas92. XtraJovial ( talk • contribs) 21:21, 4 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Conditional keep per WP:HEY, IFF if the sources found are added to the article; otherwise, draftify. Bearian ( talk) 02:30, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Due to the sources found by Reywas92. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:08, 7 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 John Hornby. As noted in this discussion, the sources don't really support the material in the article. Joyous! | Talk 00:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC) reply

The Land of Feast or Famine (Hornby)

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

Article about an unpublished novel manuscript, not properly referenced as passing our notability criteria for novels. The notability claim being attempted here is that it was credited as "helping to build the public's perception of the harshness, danger, and romance of life in the north" -- except that it fails to quantify how an unpublished book (which, by definition, was not widely read) can actually do that -- and the two footnotes here are not reliable or notability-making sources, but consist of a brief glance off the writer's existence in an academic thesis that isn't about him or his work, and an article in a limited circulation magazine published by a private foundation. This is not sufficient sourcing to claim that an unpublished manuscript would pass WP:GNG. Bearcat ( talk) 18:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Canada. Bearcat ( talk) 18:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I thought merge into John Hornby would seem reasonable; however I note Hornby's Dictionary of Canadian Biography entry [30] doesn't mention it, and the Torch Magazine article, which is one of the two sources, doesn't seem to mention it either?? The mentions in the Raffan dissertation appear fairly glancing. There are other mentions, including [31], which refers to it as "notes for a projected book" and "proposed book". Also [32] "I have chosen the name for this book as a tribute to Hornby, who often spoke of writing a book under that title." Also [33] "An account of that winter is in Ingstad’s (1992) book The Land of Feast and Famine, which is the name of John Hornby’s unwritten book (Stewart, 1984)." Also [34] "Under the window on the west side was a leather suitcase....it contained a large notebook in which was the beginning of a story called, "In the Land of Feast or Famine: A Life in the Arctic Region," by J. Hornby. A preface and the first two chapters, also draft reports and notes on Caribou, etc." and there are several more relevant hits in Google. Given that multiple mention of it exists in reliable sources, there seems no harm in at least a redirect and a brief mention in Hornby's article, especially as he appears to have been the originator of a phrase now commonly used to refer to the area. Espresso Addict ( talk) 03:25, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect. The quotes given in this article in the footnotes don't really support the text they're attached to - so agree with Espresso Addict that there is no need for a merge. A single sentence about it on his biography article is all we'd need. -- asilvering ( talk) 23:54, 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 20:49, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply

List of compositions by Matthew de Lacey Davidson

List of compositions by Matthew de Lacey Davidson (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Created by subject. AfD in tandem with subject article. Source is primary generated. Linked pages are also created by subject and need AfD. No notable performances or reviews. Maineartists ( talk) 16:34, 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 20:48, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Matthew de Lacey Davidson

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

Clearly COI. Does not meet notability criteria. Primary links. Sources are not reliable secondary. Maineartists ( talk) 16:27, 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! 22:28, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Okayceci

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

WP:BLP of a musician, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. As always, every musician is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because she exists -- she has to accomplish something quantifiably significant, and have a significant volume and depth of media coverage about her, in order to qualify for inclusion. But this literally just states that she exists, doesn't even attempt a meaningful notability claim beyond "she exists", and is referenced to just one Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself in the first person in an online magazine, which isn't enough sourcing to claim that she would pass WP:GNG. Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when she does meet the necessary standard of substance and sourcing, but this isn't already enough. Bearcat ( talk) 16:16, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

I hadn't seen that at all, but yeah, it should. I'll add it. Bearcat ( talk) 16:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete both - This article, and the online blurbs that it uses as sources, use terms like "up-and-coming" and "rising" which are dead giveaways of a promotional effort by herself and/or a manager, and someone simply copied those blurbs into WP. Good luck to her as she gets started, but she does not qualify for an article here until she gets noticed by reliable and significant music media. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 13:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete both Due to WP:PROMOTION. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:17, 7 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 03:09, 6 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Johnny Angel Wendell

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

I can't find any evidence that this person meets the notability guidelines for music (being a local supporting act for notable bands really, really doesn't count). He's had no charting singles, does not seem to have been instrumental in innovations in his chosen form of music, and as far as I can tell has only received trivial coverage except in the most fringe of publications. The article has been largely edited by two single-purpose accounts, which probably explains its boosterism. The links to it are also very much trivial and show how difficult it was to connect his page to the rest of Wikipedia ... this really shouldn't be the case for punk rock singers from the US, a subject area/country of which we usually have great coverage. Graham 87 13:27, 24 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enos733 ( talk) 16:06, 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 Kixeye. This does not seem to meet General Notability guidelines on its own, but could work well as a section on the parent company's article. Joyous! | Talk 20:48, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Minions (video game)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Looking through the custom WP:VG/RS search engine, I get two results when looking up "minions" and "Paul Preece", one of the developers. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:57, 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 20:47, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Fivetran

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND and WP:SIRS. References are PR, funding news, and routine annoucements. scope_creep Talk 15:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep - In his haste to serially nominate several articles I started for deletion, nom hasn't done a proper WP:BEFORE. A simple Google search turns up another great source on page 2 - an in-depth piece by a Forbes staffer noting that the company is worth billions, and chronicling its history. [ [35]] I'll find some more and add it. Please look more carefully next time. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 18:12, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
It not a case of I've a made a mistake. The article is crock and reference fails WP:ORGIND. scope_creep Talk 21:51, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
More haste. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:53, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The Forbes source linked above: How $5.6 Billion Cloud Company Fivetran Acquired Its Way To Survival lacks sufficient independence per WP:ORGIND because it is based on interviews with George Fraser, CEO/cofounder of Fivetran, Bob Muglia, a Fivetran board member, Martin Casado, "a partner at VC firm Andreessen Horowitz, which was a lead investor on Fivetran’s last three funding rounds", and Y Combinator president Geoff Ralston ("who endearingly counts Fivetran as one of the ultimate “cockroaches” out of more than 3,800 startups that have gone through Y Combinator"). This is a puff piece, accompanying a Forbes Cloud 100 List, and If a source's independence is in any doubt, it is better to exercise caution and exclude it from determining quality sources for the purposes of establishing notability. Beccaynr ( talk) 03:29, 3 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - there is insufficient support per WP:NCORP - the first source in the article ( VentureBeat, 2021) is a raised capital and acquisition announcement (which are examples of trivial coverage per WP:CORPDEPTH) that links to and quotes a Fivetran press release, so it lacks sufficient independence per WP:ORGIND. The second source, Computer Weekly, 2019, is a report on five companies, and the brief Fivetran section begins with quoting CEO Fraser, moves on to what the company says about itself, "Their thesis", "in their view," "what they term" and ends with "Fraser also counsels". This source lacks WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND, and it is the most-frequently cited reference in the article. Other sources in the article are trivial coverage as outlined by WP:CORPDEPTH (i.e. announcements of annual financial results, the opening or closing of local branches, expansions, acquisitions, "top 100" list, and raised capital). There is brief critical coverage from The Register, 2022, and my search finds more press releases and churnalism. Beccaynr ( talk) 04:32, 3 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: a directory-like listing for un unremarkable private company. Fails WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH per review of available sources. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:31, 5 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The editors above have analysed the sources so I don't have to, topic company fails NCORP, none of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing ++ 17:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Source analysis doesn't show that WP:NCORP is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:15, 7 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 here even though discussion has not run 7 days. Without prejudice to any RM if that is a concern. (non-admin closure) Selfstudier ( talk) 13:33, 3 November 2022 (UTC) reply

List of states with limited recognition

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

Completely original research. There is no reference for the "criteria for inclusion". ——🦝 The Interaccoonale Will be the raccoon race ( talk・ contribs) 14:38, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Both the relevant bullet points lead to articles with quite a few references. They're hardly original. CMD ( talk) 14:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
    Source please. ——🦝 The Interaccoonale Will be the raccoon race ( talk・ contribs) 02:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    I have no source listing which Wikipedia articles have references. That sort of thing is verifiable only through our own dogged efforts. CMD ( talk) 14:00, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Article's criteria is well described and content and reasons for inclusion or exclusion are well sourced. I see no facts here I would challenge as original research or of questionable verifiability, and the nomination is quite poorly thought out for a proposal to delete a page with 14 talk page archives and hundreds of editors establishing the article's content. Reywas92 Talk 15:37, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The "inclusion criteria" remains ambiguous, in my opinion. States with near universal recognition are included on the list which has been a talk page concern from many editors- for years. There is an on-going talk page discussion about this which confirms that the "inclusion criteria" (which may also violate WP:PROPORTION) is still a concern for many. Either the criteria gets a much needed update or this issue will become a never-ending saga. Inclined to support a soft delete but I'm hopeful this nomination will actually (and finally) help refine/update the "inclusion criteria". If that happens, then inclined to support a strong keep. Regards, Archives908 ( talk) 16:49, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep There seems to be some edit warring and arguments on the talk page about certain things being included. There are 110 references in the article. This is an encyclopedic topic. No valid reason given for deletion. Dream Focus 18:24, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
    There doesn't seem to be an active edit war on List of states with limited recognition. Last major edit was 11 days ago. As for the talk page, there is an on-going conversation regarding this topic and it seems pretty civil to me. Archives908 ( talk) 19:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
    agreed Victory to the UAW ( talk) 11:46, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. No evident OR - the criteria can be sourced per CMD and the article as a whole is well-supported. I'd argue that Archives908's comment above is trying to use the deletion process as a means of pressuring editors to take the user's position in a content dispute, which is not what it is for. I would note, however, that a brief review of the talk page archives would demonstrate that the dispute is not anything like as entrenched or repetitious as the comment would imply. Kahastok  talk 18:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
    That's a loaded assumption and not at all appreciated. Simply made a comment to alert others that there is an active talk page discussion about this topic, which may be of interest. Archives908 ( talk) 19:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
    If that's what it is, then it's inappropriate campaigning because it's not a neutral description of the question. Kahastok  talk 19:08, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
    No, it is not. As you can see, I did not cast a vote to keep or delete the article and have remained pretty neutral. I see the merits in the nom but also for a keep. My comment is focused on the main topic of this nom- which is the "criteria for inclusion". Please don't twist my intentions. Thanks! Archives908 ( talk) 19:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
    Oh, come off it. Your comment is almost entirely about how the inclusion of the likes of China and Israel has been a talk page concern from many editors- for years and will become a never-ending saga unless you get your way, to the point where you argue for a soft delete if you don't get your way and a strong keep if you do.
  • Turns out, somebody here actually looked through the talk page archive, at least for the last 11 years. Turns out, the point has been raised precisely twice in that entire period, both in 2022. Turns out, this supposedly-serious never-ending saga, this major concern for many editors for many years, did not result in so much as a single discussion for the entire period from at least March 2011 to May 2022. In that context, I see no reason not to call bullshit. Kahastok  talk 23:01, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
    Discussions about rules of inclusion, options for rename and scoping, what to include, terminology and so forth (non-country specific threads) and then I skipped a few that in essence are about the way the list is compiled.
    2006 "Unrecognized countries or secessionist teritories?"
    2006 "Criteria for inclusion in this list" / "categories"
    2007 "Partially unrecognised states"
    2007 "suggestion"
    2007 "Section merging / confusion"
    2007 "Five tiny proposals for titles of sections and subsections"
    2008 "partially recognized"?
    2008 "Recognised/unrecoginsed by UN Security Council states"
    2008 "Terms of reference"
    2008 "Rename proposal: to List of partially recognised sovereignty"
    2009 "Proposal for new classification of states"
    2009 "Substantial recognition status"
    2009 "De Facto States"
    2009 "More states?"
    2009 "UN member states, not recognized by at least one other state"
    2011 "Governments with limited recognition versus states with limited recognition"
    2012 "Recognized by at least one/ not recognized by at least one"
    2012 "People here are thinking UN is some sort of important atlas?"
    2014 "RFC: Propose use of terminologies "non-UN members""
    2014 "Requested move 07 December 2014"
    2018 "Can absence of any recognition be considered as "limited recognition"?"
    2020 "Inclusion criteria - Academic sources"
    2021 "RfC on the inclusion of DNR and LNR in the list of states with limited recognition"
    2022 "Criteria of inclusion"
    2022 "Let's not include states with close to universal recognition as having "limited recognition""
    2022 "Limited vs. partial recognition" Labrang ( talk) 23:57, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
So, what you're saying is this. You are suggesting that the fact that we had an RFC in 2021 on the topic of whether Donetsk and Luhansk met the current inclusion criteria at that time is evidence of the claim States with near universal recognition are included on the list which has been a talk page concern from many editors- for years. Bearing in mind that neither Donetsk nor Luhansk had ever been recognised by any UN member state at that time.
Frankly, if anything this proves my point. Most of that list is in the same territory. You can see that from the titles - note no links as a rule. I haven't checked the pre-2011 cases, but there is no evidence from the talk page history of what is claimed to be an serious ongoing long-term dispute. Kahastok  talk 18:36, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Please provide reliable sources for the "criteria for inclusion" if you wan to keep it. Who defined it? In which literature (books or journals)? Otherwise this article is completely original research. ——🦝 The Interaccoonale Will be the raccoon race ( talk・ contribs) 23:16, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Why use the recognition of UN-Member States to define this concept, rather than the recognition of any de facto State? The United States is not recognized by South Ossetia and Transnistria. Is the United States a "state with limited recognition"?——🦝 The Interaccoonale Will be the raccoon race ( talk・ contribs) 23:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
    Thank you for that point. I was going to raise that. That argument would make this list a so called "coathanger". Gact is, we already look through the lens of UN-members when considering whether a country is ("universally") recognized. We do not consider a (UN) country not-universally recognized if it is not recognized by a non-UN-member. Such as the example above (or pick another one). Logical, because if we do this list would explode. The entire distinction of "(non) universal" recognition is construed around UN members recognizing states. Hence it is logical to use that as a distinct factor. Labrang ( talk) 00:02, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    Ok, but who defined it? ——🦝 The Interaccoonale Will be the raccoon race ( talk・ contribs) 00:32, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    Source please that the United States is not recognised by Transnistria. CMD ( talk) 01:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    they have no diplomatic relations ——🦝 The Interaccoonale Will be the raccoon race ( talk・ contribs) 02:28, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    That is not a lack of recognition. CMD ( talk) 02:44, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. If there are any problems here they can be fixed with editing. If a better name exists then that can be discussed and the article moved. Clearly there is a legitimate topic here and no valid reason to delete. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 13:50, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: the criteria for inclusion seem simple to me, to be basically: "the state either satisfies the declarative theory or sensibly satisfies the constitutive theory". The limitation on the constitutive theory is there just to ensure we don't get silly and include Sealand or Molossia. Somaliland is a bit of a wrinkle, but the wrinkle in itself doesn't justify deletion. Sceptre ( talk) 16:02, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, I would rename the section "List criteria" to avoid future confusion. There isn't anything there that can't be discussed on the talkpage if the scope is to be widened. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 17:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    Thanks, please provide the sources as well. ——🦝 The Interaccoonale Will be the raccoon race ( talk・ contribs) 00:59, 2 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Reliable sources discuss and compare/contrast "states with limited recognition". Where does the notion that we need to cite sources or reference for inclusion criteria of standalone lists come from? Reliable sources might not even use the same exact definition with one another of what qualifies as a "state with limited recognition". StellarHalo ( talk) 07:14, 2 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per valid arguments given above (mainly those of Reywas92, Sceptre, and StellarHalo). Encyclopedic topic with sourcing sufficient to pass WP:NLIST and WP:GNG. Sal2100 ( talk) 19:40, 2 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the concept is very well established in countless very reliable sources. It is not original research in any meaningful way to say that states that have limited recognition exists. Insofar as such states exist, a list of them is perfectly reasonable. -- Jayron 32 13:15, 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 14:15, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Kevin J. Maclean

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

I PRODded saying no evidence he met N:MUSIC but missed a 2009 PROD (thanks @ GB fan:) so we're here. Star Mississippi 14:08, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Scotland. Star Mississippi 14:08, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete next to nothing for RS. Social media sites, streaming sites, then it peters off. Oaktree b ( talk) 14:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. As usual, musicians aren't automatically notable just because they exist, and instead must be shown and reliably sourced as meeting at least one specific notability criterion in WP:NMUSIC — but neither the content nor the sourcing here demonstrate any such thing. Bearcat ( talk) 15:38, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - As far as I can see does not have the sort of coverage or career so far that would suggest he is currently or has been notable enough to have his own article. Dunarc ( talk) 21:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I did some research into him and nothing notable or significant about his career RealPharmer3 ( talk) 01:19, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Does not meet notability criteria. Coldupnorth ( talk) 22:43, 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 Shawntheshipper Liz Read! Talk! 10:14, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Zulqarnain sikandar

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

Not notable actor per (NACTOR). Just checked the facts and they don't match. The mentioned movies in the table are not relevant to this guy. Possible faking the facts. Morpho achilles ( talk) 13:15, 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. ✗ plicit 11:42, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Jóhannes Stefánsson

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

Was redirected as a result of an AfD a couple of years ago, and nothing has changed since then. Case of WP:BIO1E. No notability outside of the scandal. Should be a redirect to that page, but redirect was challenged. Onel5969 TT me 11:13, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep The article has been expanded and improved a lot since the AfD a couple years ago, and he received a prestigious international award in the field.
His notability being mainly limited to the scandal isnt the point and isnt a disqualifier, which WP:BIO1E says. If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. That definitely applies.
The BLP includes a lot of RS info that isnt in the Fishrot Files article and has no clear place to add it. If we merged the articles, it would basically double the size of the Fishrot Files article Softlemonades ( talk) 11:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 12:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Africa. North America 1000 12:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The subject played a major role in one of Iceland's an Namibia's biggest scandals of the century and has been highly covered in both Icelandic and Namibian sources. Being mainly notable for one event does not disqualify the subject from having an article per WP:BIO1E. Alvaldi ( talk) 21:00, 3 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per above discussion. I don't understand the nom. If he wants to merge, then merge it or propose a merger. That's not the purpose of AfD. Bearian ( talk) 02:39, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply
I believe the nomination is asking for an official redirect, not a merger. The last AFD decision was to redirect but that obviously didn't last. Liz Read! Talk! 09:34, 7 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. It was either No consensus or relisting this discussion for another week so I chose NC. Liz Read! Talk! 09:30, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Lady Helena Gibbs

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

I am having trouble finding in-depth coverage of the subject, as required by our notability criteria. If, as it seems to me, she is only ever mentioned in passing, there should probably be no stand-alone article about her on Wikipedia. Surtsicna ( talk) 10:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Royalty and nobility, United Kingdom, and England. Surtsicna ( talk) 10:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • I had thought her life was quite interesting, but then this happened. I am now inclining towards delete or redirect. She 'helped' open a children's home and opened a local flower show? These are not things that speak of substantial notability. Celia Homeford ( talk) 13:02, 31 October 2022 (UTC) No longer 'inclined' but definite. The insignificant content added to the article appears to demonstrate that she did nothing exceptional. Celia Homeford ( talk) 13:57, 3 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - her marriage to Gibbs received quite a bit of notice, both in England and abroad. I have added the coverage to the page. The later articles about her opening children's homes and local flower shows is an indication of on-going coverage of her role in society. DaffodilOcean ( talk) 13:36, 3 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Let's be honest: that's routine coverage. It does not qualify as in-depth coverage, not even remotely. Otherwise I am very grateful for your contribution. Surtsicna ( talk) 18:36, 3 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Throughout her life she was the subject of news coverage. I concur that some recent additions to the page have not helped to improve it (as no doubt the editor hoped to do). Noel S McFerran ( talk) 01:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Where is the in-depth coverage? It is one of our notability criteria. Surtsicna ( talk) 07:57, 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 23:33, 6 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Current Communications Group

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

Unable to find any secondary reliable sources with in-depth coverage. This article was previously (incorrectly) batch-nominated with some others at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ESR Technology. Giraffer ( talk· contribs) 08:55, 17 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! 08:45, 24 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete zero sources found, appears to be a defunct company. Oaktree b ( talk) 13:05, 24 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 10:03, 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 List of recurring characters in The Suite Life of Zack & Cody. Liz Read! Talk! 09:25, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Mr. Moseby

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

MULTIPLE flags. Describes a work or element of fiction in a primarily in-universe style, relies largely or entirely on a single source, contains original research, includes a list of general references, but it lacks sufficient corresponding inline citations, and lacks relevance. This is just a fictional character biography that does not meet the encyclopedic tone of wikipedia. Has been reported multiple times but has seen little improvement in the years since it was voted not to be deleted.

Merge to list. Article is way too bad and barely any sources have been found. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 22:19, 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 23:35, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Alexander Blockx

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

Lacks notability. Gets passing mentions now as the partner of Bemelmans at his farewell tournament, but no significant attention for him yet. Fram ( talk) 08:16, 24 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 09:31, 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:46, 5 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Massimo Scolari

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

BLP with no references Rathfelder ( talk) 08:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Fine. FINE. But the article was a mad 2008 throwback and should never have been allowed (by the Universe, clearly) to stay in that state for so long. I can't blame the nom for this one, honestly. BEFORE is a choice, not a burden and the article is a travesty. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 16:12, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
I simply don't understand why established editors who have Wikipedia Library access don't just dump the quoted name into the WL search engine and see what comes out. In this case there are 299 hits, the first page of which look to be the right guy. I admit it's more difficult when the name is "John Smith", or the subject is Chinese, or Arabic, or Russian, but in this case there seems no excuse. Espresso Addict ( talk) 19:33, 2 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, I'll hold up my hands and admit I added the 'notability' template in 2014 ...and the article is still in poor shape, being largely taken word-for-word from Scolari's website. But I can see numerous articles about him and reviews of his books, in reputable architectural magazines. If indeed he has works in major art institutions like MOMA, that is more than adequate to pass WP:NARTIST. I'll have a look at imporving the article tonight. Sionk ( talk) 16:26, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per all the reasons above. Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:26, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, per above & WL search mentioned above. Espresso Addict ( talk) 19:33, 2 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Happy to withdraw this now there are references. Rathfelder ( talk) 19:29, 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 keep. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 08:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Vesturbæjarlaug

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

The article itself seems like a small display ad without proper contextual information and lacks authoritative citing. It's also out of the bounds of WP:Notability guidelines. JackFredrickk801 ( talk) 07:56, 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 redirect to Peace (film). Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 03:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Sanfeer K

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

The list of specialisations is rather exhausting for this Keralite polymath - geographer, scientist, web designer, lyricist, composer and feature film director. The difficulty is finding which of these, if any, confer notability on him. The ultimate answer is 'none', although there is potentially an emerging case for future notability if he directs more films than the one, Peace, which has the most attention in the article as it stands. Coverage across the board is interviews, incidental and passing mentions in the main and he doesn't make WP:FILMMAKER or WP:DIRECTOR. He doesn't appear to make WP:NACADEMIC and based on coverage alone arguably fails WP:GNG. It's probably WP:TOOSOON but on the balance, right now, he is not clearly notable. Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 06:11, 17 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Music, Science, India, and Kerala. Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 06:11, 17 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: The page annoys me from the first line. Elsevier is not a journal, it is a publisher of academic journals. The paper mentioned in the first sentence is in Spatial and Spatio-temporal Epidemiology. Even if we keep it there is going to have to be some fundamental cleanup. JMWt ( talk) 07:16, 17 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Further thoughts; I don't think he meets WP:NACADEMIC as he only published a couple of papers more than 5 years ago. Whether he is notable for films needs more investigation. It seems like he has some fairly solid articles on the page in decent publications, but some of these sound a bit like regurgitated press releases - issued to gain a bit of PR. But it is possible that there are more in-depth articles given that his background is unusual. JMWt ( talk) 07:29, 17 October 2022 (UTC) reply
OK, I'm not finding much other than reviews of the film. So I'm thinking, unless anyone can find better refs, that the best thing to do is merge with Peace (film). I have some doubts about that page too, as it is quite hard to tell whether it is more than a reasonably well-received first film by a director. JMWt ( talk) 07:39, 17 October 2022 (UTC) reply
An alternative to deletion may be a redirect to Peace (film)... Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 07:48, 17 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Peace (film). That's what his name is connected to. All the rest is painfully promotional puffery with no coverage independent of the director role. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 08:30, 17 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - This person is an happening director of Malayalam films and clearly very notable, but I am not familiar with his scientist tag. 182.77.38.23 ( talk) 07:46, 18 October 2022 (UTC) — 182.77.38.23 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:00, 24 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - The person is a notable film maker with a couple of projects with adequate references; the page looks okay now and his project scientist job too is having citations. 49.37.215.224 ( talk) 07:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC) — 49.37.215.224 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:07, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Research work is routine and WP:NOTCV, and he does not meet WP:NFILMMAKER. LizardJr8 ( talk) 22:58, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Sanfeer is now a notable director of Mollywood with three projects going on including Tamil. His status as a scientist is not relevant here. Cpsathar ( talk) 13:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 0x Deadbeef→∞ ( talk to me) 10:29, 6 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - not seeing significant coverage, fails WP:GNG, and not seeing how his research work would contribute to notability either. 0x Deadbeef→∞ ( talk to me) 10:32, 6 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Sanfeer is a notable film director of Kerala. Omkaaram ( talk) 06:22, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I don't see secondary coverage of the subject. This reads like a puff piece supported by original research. Statements like "[he is] known for his contributions to geography through peer-reviewed publications" should go. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk) 07:58, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Peace (film) It appears that his primary notability comes from his association there. If he continues his film career, or makes significant contributions in some of the other areas he seems to be interested in, his article might be revisited. Joyous! | Talk 01:12, 8 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 08:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply

500 Miles North

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

The article has no significant or secondary sources. It currently fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Also, it has been flagged for additional citations for verification since April 2019. In my own WP:BEFORE I haven’t not found anything of significance that would help the article to pass notability guidelines, but if you do find some, please do provide them. Fats40boy11 ( talk) 07:04, 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. There is consensus that this article is not currently suitable for mainspace. What is unclear is whether anyone plans on actually working on it in draft space. While it's very true that it's not required, a stale draft just kicks the can down the road six months. That said, if someone intends to work on it - no need to go to refund. I will restore it to draft space. Just ask. Star Mississippi 03:27, 8 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Indian Springs State Bank

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

A Google search returns Wikipedia mirrors and no real in depth sources about the bank. Suggested merge and redirect to Farhad Azima or Global International Airways. Grey Wanderer ( talk) 15:46, 16 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Kansas. Grey Wanderer ( talk) 15:46, 16 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Earlier today I deprodded this article and left an indication in the edit summary that I could improve the page with sourced information but I had to go out and couldn't do it immediately. So thanks for not waiting and giving me a chance to do that (which I will now put on hold until it decided whether this is to be kept}. This book and the Oversight Hearing here and [42] between them provide references for most of the material removed from the article (by the nom) in this edit as unreliably sourced. There is also scope for further expansion from those two sources. This book, although basically an art book, seems well researched and has a lot to say on the connection between the Indian Springs bank and mobsters over several pages. If you don't like that one try books with a more political theme [43] [44] [45]. In short, there is plenty of material out there to expand the article. Spinning Spark 16:30, 16 October 2022 (UTC) reply
User:Spinningspark, thank you for taking on improving the article. I can tell you wrote the above in anger, don’t forget to assume good faith. Firstly, please strike out your false claim that I removed any content from article. The edit you have linked was not me. Secondly, I took you quite literally in your edit summery, you left no indication you planned to return, if you had done so I wouldn’t have nominated the article so quickly… so that too seems to be misleading at best and for the sake of integrity ought to be struck through. Either way, sarcastic “thank yous” aren’t constructive. We’re all just trying to build a better encyclopedia here. Grey Wanderer ( talk)
Looking at the sources above, I see a lot of what may be WP:Fringe, an inappropriate primary source, possibly self-published books, and some trivial mentions (your first one is one short paragraph in a 300 page book which also has some pretty out there info about the apparent connection between Freemasons, the New World Order, the Illuminati, George Bush, and Nuclear Weapons). If these are the best sources available then at the moment it doesn’t look to me to demonstrate the bank meets WP:GNG. It’s a bit alarming to see an Administrator link such blatantly unreliable sources. Grey Wanderer ( talk) 01:30, 17 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Your main mistake appears to be spelt out in the first three words of your nomination. Why on Earth would you expect to find reliable sources about anything, but particularly a bank that failed in 1984, on the web? Search in books and academic papers for reliable sources. Phil Bridger ( talk) 14:02, 17 October 2022 (UTC) reply
My apologies for incorrectly identifying you as the deleting editor. You are right that I posted in haste and may not have been too careful in choosing sources to list. I wanted to post my thoughts before there were any pile-on deletes to this discussion. However, I think it is worth you looking again at Inside Job: The Looting of America's Savings and Loans [46]. This was published by Open Road Media, a republisher of old books. It was originally published in 1989 by McGraw Hill, a well known reliable publisher. The original edition can be borrowed from IA here if you have an account. The bank is discussed from page 98 onwards and continues to be referenced for the next 20 pages or so. You weren't explicit in what you meant by "inappropriate primary source" but I suppose you meant the text from the Oversight Hearing. It's certainly not inappropriate and primary sources can be used with care in articles. The very fact that the bank was discussed at such a hearing is evidence of some notability. It could be used for quotes and undisputed facts, but not for drawing conclusions. Spinning Spark 14:30, 17 October 2022 (UTC) reply
That one source seems to be an ok start. Forgive my suspicion but given the quality of the other six sources I didn’t spend much time investigating the original publisher of that book. However, we will need multiple sources to establish notability, if you find some I will withdraw my nomination. The primary source is inappropriate because WP:GNG explicitly states sources used to establish notability should be secondary. Am I misunderstanding this? I am flummoxed as to why you would think there wouldn’t be any sources on the web considering you have only provided sources on the web. As you know the minimum search expected before nominating requires more than just a basic Google search, so I’m not sure what my “main mistake” was but if I’ve made others please tell me so I can avoid repeating them in the future. I’ve never been particularly active at AfD, and I know policies can change. Grey Wanderer ( talk) 19:46, 17 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Please don't confuse me with Spinningspark. We are different people. You only addressed in your nomination a Google web search, which for just about any subject, notable or not, finds mostly Wikipedia mirrors and unreliable sources. You did not address your findings from searching for reliable sources. Phil Bridger ( talk) 20:04, 17 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Sorry about that! I see now you are not the same. I’m still confused as to where I made a mistake? I did my due diligence per WP:AfD step D, as required before nom. If more is required please link a policy so I can learn. Perhaps you thought I just did a basic Google search? I will be more specific next time before I nominate something. Since Wikipedia only uses reliable sources why would you assume that’s not what I’m talking about in the nom? Grey Wanderer ( talk) 20:35, 17 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or Draftify, if Spinningspark is willing to work on it. Of the two current sources, neither is significant coverage of the institution (the AP article is about the owner, and only mentions it several times). Searches on Google books did not turn up enough to meet GNG. Newspapers.com might be a promising area to look, there are hundreds of hits. However, of the 50 or so I looked at, all were simple mentions or advertisements. It would take time to wade through all the articles and see if there is enough there. Onel5969 TT me 18:06, 23 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:14, 23 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Comment I found one mention ("In the Kansas indictment announced yesterday, Mr. Renda and others are charged with defrauding the Indian Springs State Bank and Coronado Federal Savings and Loan, both of Kansas City, of $7 million in unsecured real-estate loans after brokering deposits into the two institutions.") in NYT. Ebsco has more:
    Ringer, R & Fraust, B 1984, ‘A tale of brokered deposits and a busted bank; FDIC blames tie-in arrangements for failure of small shopping center bank in Kansas’, American Banker, vol. 149, p. 1, viewed 24 October 2022
    Margolies, D 1990, ‘Defendant in bank fraud case returned to Kansas City’, The Kansas City Business Journal, vol. 9, no. 4, p. 11, viewed 24 October 2022,
    Ringer, R & Fraust, B 1984, ‘A tale of brokered deposits and a busted bank; FDIC blames tie-in arrangements for failure of small shopping center bank in Kansas’, American Banker, vol. 149, p. 1, viewed 24 October 2022
All of these (and others) turn up under the search, but whether that results in the bank itself being notable is up for discussion, IMO. Lamona ( talk) 03:19, 24 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify Currently lacks in-depth coverage to meet WP:NCORP, however it is plausible that such sources exist if a user is keen to do the hard yards. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd draftify this article with more assurances that it would be worked on.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:19, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Comment – Hi Liz: Yeah, drafification here may be the way, but at AfD, I feel that it's inappropriate to request any users to obligate to work on the article as a requirement for draftification. Part of the notion here is, so if nobody obligates themselves to improving the contents, then would you instead decide to delete, sans said obligatory improvements? Sorry, but it typically doesn't work this way. This is a volunteer community, not a job assignment community. North America 1000 13:11, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
    I will definitely add the material and sources I have found if the article is kept. If it goes to draft, not so likely it will be me doing the work and then having to implore some spotty kid of a reviewer to allow it after all of 32 seconds of attention. Either we have found enough to meet NORG or we haven't. If we have, then WP:NEXIST applies and the article should be kept. Spinning Spark 13:59, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Spinningspark:. I found a relevant policy at WP:NCORP: WP:ILLCON. Arn't all of these sources about the bank's alleged crimes? If so, then I can’t see how the bank meets notability. Grey Wanderer ( talk) 14:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
    However, the organization may still be notable, in whole or in part due to such sources, under different guidelines, e.g., WP:CRIME. Spinning Spark 16:37, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
    I am a bit confused by that part; help me understand. Doesn't WP:CRIME only apply to biography articles? Besides, isn’t it best to follow the guidelines for organizations and companies since that is what we are dealing with? Do any of the sources you've found deal with the company outside of it's criminal activity and subsequent failure? Grey Wanderer ( talk) 16:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
    To be honest, that bit confused me too, but the guideline only gives CRIME as an example, not as the only guideline that may apply. The basic point I think is that the illegal (or unwise) activity may itself be notable separately from the organisation. That kind of implies that the article should be structured (and possibly named) around that activity rather than structured as a regular bank article. If CRIME were not specifically in the NBIO guieline, it would certainly apply in this case imo, and remember, a bank counts as a juridical person. Spinning Spark 17:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
    Hmmm food for thought at least, I'm learning some things. If the company is "notable under different guidelines" don't we need sources that discuss the bank outside of it's criminal activity? I'm looking at sources like the news story above that describes the "failure of small shopping center bank in Kansas." Is a small shopping center bank notable? The only interesting thing about the company is its criminal activity, which according to WP:NCORP "can't be used to establish notability". Grey Wanderer ( talk) 21:01, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
North America, I didn't expect my relisting comment to obligate anyone to working on this article in Draft space. I understand that we are all volunteers. I guess what I was trying to get at was that Draftifying was an alternative to Deletion. I've found in the AFDs I review, sometimes editors get into a Keep vs. Delete mindset and forget about alternatives like Redirecting, Merging or Draftifying. It might not have been my place as the relisting editor but I just want to encourage participating editors to consider alternatives beyond Keeping and Deleting. Liz Read! Talk! 07:15, 2 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify as per the arguments above, none of the references meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability, give Spinningspark an opportunity to improve in Drafts. No biggie if it doesn't work out, Drafts will get deleted after 6 months in any case, or hopefully this topic will be returned with adequate referencing. HighKing ++ 19:53, 6 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. ✗ plicit 14:28, 2 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Deora, Colorado

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

1920 is a really late date for a new 4th class post office, but the Taylor reference states that's what it was, and the topos and aerials tend to confirm this: the same two farms still sit there, and one of them is the location of the old post office. You can still use it as an alternate city in two zip codes, but there's no sign this was a town. Mangoe ( talk) 03:37, 17 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:57, 24 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! 05:55, 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! 05:13, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Genetix

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

Non-notable virtual machine platform. Has some mentions in publications from the 2000s but did not appear to make any major impact. Natg 19 ( talk) 04:52, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep It is unclear which policy or guideline nominator is referring to. There is significant coverage (not "mentions") in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject, as suggested in WP:GNG. The word "impact" does not appear in Wikipedia:Notability, and is not a deciding factor when determining notability. -- Bensin ( talk) 17:05, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Has good coverage in multiple independent sources (I only looked at the New Scientist and IT World Canada references, and I feel they are sufficient). I do wonder if it might need to be re-written from the present to the past tense though... Thparkth ( talk) 20:42, 4 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - The article might need rewording and expansion, but the references already present in the article show significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Notability is not temporary; that the references are not from within the past few years is not evidence of a lack of notability. While being "significant in its particular field" is one of the four criteria of WP:NSOFT, not meeting that criteria is not indicative of a lack of notability. - Aoidh ( talk) 03:57, 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 redirect to List of Sri Lanka Army Sports Club cricketers. Liz Read! Talk! 05:12, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Krishantha Ukwatte

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

Fails SIGCOV and by extension GNG. Zero sources and notability is not demonstrated by neither the article nor Google. InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 04:09, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Sri Lanka. InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 04:09, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • On that rationale, as a double negative, we should keep the article. I'll take a look and see if Krishantha made more appearances as he seems to have been a new player when the article was written. Sources certainly exist in Sri Lanka, which is a major cricket nation, but they are difficult for English editors to find as they are mostly written in Sinhala. If the article does fail SIGCOV, WP:ATD must apply per policy and I'll find a suitable target. BoJó | talk UTC 06:23, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
That was his sole first-class appearance so it looks like a redirect per ATD unless he is notable in some non-cricket aspect. Leave it with me while I work out where it can go. BoJó | talk UTC 06:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
I've just created List of Sri Lanka Army Sports Club cricketers so this can be a redirect to that per the WP:ATD policy. BoJó | talk UTC 06:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • He has profiles on both CricInfo - the first hit if you press the Google link above the AfD nom - and CricketArchive - an external link from the article page. So we can verify that he played a single match for the side. Both of those are reliable enough in this case. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 20:40, 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 02:47, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Faruque Ahmed

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

I don't see the person received any significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Didn't won any significant award or honor. The person's works hasn't become a significant monument, won significant critical attention. Also clearly COI involve here, looks like created by someone close, e.g. File:Faruque Ahmed 2014.JPG "PD-self" uploaded by the creator. Article fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk) 02:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete; I fully concur with Lionfox and আফতাবুজ্জামান. InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 04:35, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete: I got nothing per Google search about this subject. ( Kasar Wuya, talk) 06:04, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

It’s not reasonably claimed to delete the article.let’s be reasonable and share your points on the request of deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abraz Ahmed ( talk • contribs) 19:08, 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 02:48, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Association of Translators and Interpreters of Saskatchewan

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

I PRODded, missing the prior bundle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interpreters/Translators Society of the Northwest Territories. It was subsequently recreated and deleted as A7 and then re-created, but I remain unable to find N:ORG level for this membership association. Star Mississippi 01:59, 17 October 2022 (UTC) reply

I am also nominating the following because of the same issues with a lack of independent, reliable sourcing:

Association of Translators and Interpreters of Alberta (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Star Mississippi 02:06, 17 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete both wp:norg fail, significant coverage not found. ( t · c) buidhe 07:56, 17 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Search in Newspapers.com yields in-depth provincial newspaper coverage including this 1990 article in The Leader-Post, and there are other articles discussing the organization including this 1991 article, also in The Leader Post and this 1980 article in The Leader-Post. All of the above coverage relies heavily on representatives of the organization as sources...but it is possible there is more in there if one looks closely. Coverage in The Saskatoon Sun is mostly mentions. If additional coverage were found – e.g., in-depth from a publication other than The Leader-Post plus some discussion of the organization outside Saskatchewan, or commentary from an outside expert, acknowledging its importance – I could lean more toward !keep. A further comment though is that if all these associations are being deleted, I would strongly recommend turning the redlinks black on the following page (and any others like it): Canadian_Translators,_Terminologists_and_Interpreters_Council Cielquiparle ( talk) 10:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete it should be removed per WP:NORG 24.138.27.215 ( talk) 11:03, 19 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! 01:52, 24 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 02:42, 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 08:14, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Amy Loughren

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

Loughren is a low-profile individual who is notable for only one event, stopping serial killer Charles Cullen, per WP:BLP1E. Person does not have notability beyond this to warrant a standalone article. Person's background can be covered at Charles Cullen, which is the article that houses the complete background of which Cullen is the center. Any current coverage about Loughren is still rooted in her history of stopping Cullen. Erik ( talk |  contrib) ( ping me) 01:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Yes, ONEEVENT, but subject is featured in a film where she's played by Jessica Chastain looking to add to her awards mantel. I'd say this BLP is solid enough (and at worse we're talking a redirect to The Good Nurse, not any kind of deletion or PERP redirect). Nate • ( chatter) 03:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Yes, I do not oppose covering Loughren in a broader article. The point is that per WP:BLP1E, a biography is not suitable. She is a low-profile individual who is only notable for stopping Cullen, and other details like her being a grandmother are indiscriminate in this scope. It's like creating biographies for police officers or Good Samaritans who put a stop to mass shootings, and the news reports about these low-profile individuals for a news cycle. The fact Chastain played her is straightforward and covered in one sentence and does not mean Loughren suddenly inherits her standalone notability from the actor's performance (which is of Loughren's only notable act, stopping Cullen). Erik ( talk |  contrib) ( ping me) 13:23, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Except that most police officers or good samaritans don't have films made about them. She is notable for the fact that her story has been made into a film. Lard Almighty ( talk) 13:26, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • The film is not biographical. It does not cover Loughren's life. It covers Loughren's sole notable deed. In the same sense, "films made about them" is fuzzy logic; the film made covered Loughren's notable deed, not her life or her larger story. Erik ( talk |  contrib) ( ping me) 13:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • It is still more than the average police officer or good samaritan, so my point remains that your comparison is not apt. And indeed, the title of the film refers to her. Yes it's an episode of her life, as many biopics are, but it is still notable. Lard Almighty ( talk) 13:54, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep "notable for only one event" which is "stopping serial killer Charles Cullen". Yes, that's notable enough. Krimuk2.0 ( talk) 06:45, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep With the release of the film there is increasing coverage specifically of Loughren and her life apart from the "one event". Lard Almighty ( talk) 11:34, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and mention in Charles Cullen / The Good Nurse article. Subject is low profile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.60.100.34 ( talk) 11:37, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I think I would enjoy reading the articles about the "good samaritans who stopped mass killings." Also, would someone please direct me to the policy that says every detail, no matter how banal, of a murderer's life is interesting, but by no means would we ever want to study or even document the lives of people who rise to heroism?-- Literaturegirl ( talk) 16:07, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:40, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Subject of a book and a movie. WP:BLP1E#3 ("the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented") is not met, so BLP1E does not apply. pburka ( talk) 20:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The film sounds biographical, according to Jessica Chastain in the AP, and this newly-created article can continue to be developed. Between the book, film, and documentary, (and a preview of scholarly journal I cannot access via GScholar), I agree WP:BLP1E#3 is not met, because her event is significant, her role in assisting law enforcement was substantial and well-documented, so merger into a biography of someone known primarily for a different event is not supported. Beccaynr ( talk) 01:35, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep WP:BLP1E is explicit that it applies "when each of three conditions is met". Criteria 3 only applies when "the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented" and in this case, Loughren's role was significant in pinning down the case and her actions are covered amply in reliable and verifiable sources about her. The notability standard is met and BLP1E does NOT apply. Alansohn ( talk) 15:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep — She's been in the mainstream media since Cullen's arrest in 2003, again during the release of Charles Graeber's best-seller book in 2013, and now in 2022 is the principle character in a highly rated film. — WILDSTAR TALK 20:33, 2 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. WP:BLP1E#3 ("If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented.") is NOT met. Stopping a serial killer is a significant event. Being the one who was instrumental in his arrest and conviction (without her contribution, he would have likely gone free) makes her role substantial. Her role in that event being the subject of a film (and a possible documentary) is solid documentation. CD ( talk) 02:33, 3 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and redirect to Charles Cullen. Everything in this article can be mentioned there. I'd like to add that the nomination actually overstates her notability despite arguing against it, if a recent interview with Loughren in the Grauniad is to be believed. Loughren didn't "stop Cullen" - he was caught by the hospital's computerised dispensing system, and then the police. The identity of the person at Somerset Medical Center who noticed the red flags in the dispensing system and called the police isn't known. Loughren didn't notice anything untoward while she was working with Cullen. Even after the police had been called she initially refused to believe the allegations until they showed her the evidence. The wiretap and partial confession was her sole contribution. AfD isn't a place to debate how many brownie points people get for assisting a police investigation, but while Loughren may be a major character in The Good Nurse, her contribution to the actual investigation, and by extension her notability, is very tenuous.
It appears that her role may have been rather overstated in a New York Post interview she gave nine years ago. -- 195.206.172.158 ( talk) 09:30, 3 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Oh, can we now please, please have a discussion on whether Kim Kardashian's actual accomplishments make her worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia? Or is somebody going to tell me it's about the coverage? Damn, it's about the coverage, isn't it? Literaturegirl ( talk) 19:03, 3 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The coverage meets WP:GNG (and as Literaturegirl noted above, whether her role was "overstated" or not is irrelevant for WP:GNG). The real question is whether she's significant beyond WP:BLP1E standards, specifically criterial #3 (1 and 2 are clearly met—she's only covered in the context of a single event, and she has otherwise remained low-profile). To be honest I think this is more iffy than some others here do, mostly because I am not sure how broad "the event" is meant to be applied here—is it the whole crime or just the discovery, arrest, and sentencing the article subject was involved in? Either way, I'm still inclined to say that the event is significant (even if "the event" here is just understood to mean the discovery, arrest, and sentencing, and not the murders themselves), and her role seems to have been both substantial and well documented. I think this is a reasonable article that merits inclusion. Dylnuge ( Talk • Edits) 00:26, 6 November 2022 (UTC) reply

KEEP - I came to Wikipedia specifically looking to find out about the true person portayed as hero of a best selling biography and now Netflix bio-pic. This “news” is almost 20 years old so the fact we’re talking about her twenty years on suggests she was a bit more than some Good Samaritan for a one off incident forgotten as soon as the news cycle moved on — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.37.146.218 ( talk) 09:05, 6 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. Sources were found during the discussion that participants determined would meet WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Enos733 ( talk) 05:34, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Adelbert S. Hay

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

Biography of a politician, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL. He held no role that was "inherently" notable enough to guarantee him a Wikipedia article without passing WP:GNG on the sourcing -- but two of the three footnotes here are from The Political Graveyard and a Blogspot blog, which are not notability-building sources at all, and while there is one real newspaper article about his death, that isn't enough all by itself. Notability is also not inherited, so he isn't automatically entitled to an article just because his father has one.
Given that the subject died over 120 years ago, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with much better access to repositories of media coverage from circa 1900 than I've got can find the depth of coverage needed to salvage it, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a lot more than just one acceptable source. Bearcat ( talk) 08:18, 16 October 2022 (UTC) reply

and more. Djflem ( talk) 14:24, 16 October 2022 (UTC) reply

I did every ounce of WP:BEFORE that I was able to do with the resources for 120-year-old American media coverage that are actually available to me, and you are not entitled to imply any negligence on my part. You've got access to New York Times archives? Great. I don't. Bearcat ( talk) 17:07, 16 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Neutral: I'm torn on this one. On one end, I feel it can be redirected to John Hay; there isn't much going on here as this is someone who died when their career was still nascent. On the other end, however, there is some significant coverage on him on newspapers.com, such as [47]. Curbon7 ( talk) 17:51, 16 October 2022 (UTC) reply
    Coverage of him is also limited to 1899-1901, so it is a needle-in-haystack situation. Curbon7 ( talk) 17:52, 16 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment His death played a major role in John Hay’s emotional decline, I believe it’s worth it’s own page. Additionally, there’s enough information on it unique to him that redirecting to Hay Sr. seems unhelpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeacockShah ( talk • contribs) 19:42, 16 October 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect to John Hay. What little there is to say about this person is of encyclopedic significance only to the biography of the father. BD2412 T 20:58, 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! 08:32, 23 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep passes GNG with signiicant coverage. Article needs expansion. Djflem ( talk) 11:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC) reply

  • I'm erring on a weak keep here but am still unsure. I've found quite a bit of information on his appointment as US consul at Pretoria during the Boer War - some of which I've added and this is not even all of it. The trouble is, all of these books are from the early 1900s and are probably not especially reliable (much like old newspapers). They do indicate notability but there seems to be nothing since that time written about him. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 23:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC) Moving to Keep after seeing this source [48]. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 03:33, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    Contemporary newspapers are generally just as reliable as modern newspapers. If this weren't the case, many of our articles on historical figures would be fucked. You just have to be aware and a bit more careful. Curbon7 ( talk) 00:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    I probably wasn't clear - I meant that you need a little more caution and they tend to hyperbolism. (I wouldn't say they are as reliable as modern newspapers though.) The recent Doug Coldwell incident shows the problems that arise when resting solely on old newspaper and book sources. Far better for an RS to have done the cautious reading of old sources and written something up for us to use. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 03:16, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    Fair enough. Curbon7 ( talk) 03:27, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep based on the above discussion, his death made international news. Bearian ( talk) 02:48, 7 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. There is enough evidence presented here of significant independent coverage to demonstrate that the subject passes WP:BASIC/ WP:SIGCOV. There's no esstential policy based reason to merge the content into the article on his father; although there may be optional editorial reasons to do so. For that reason, any merger should be made through discussion at WP:MERGEPROP, and not through this AFD. 4meter4 ( talk) 05:00, 7 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_October_31&oldid=1120653728"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE