Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 November 2: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 17:51, 9 November 2021

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 01	November 03 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Summaiya Rizwan

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

WP:BLP of a journalist, not properly referenced as passing our inclusion standards for journalists. As always, journalists are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because it's possible to verify that they exist -- the notability test requires some evidence of distinction, such as notable journalism awards and/or the reception of third-party (i.e. not from her own employers) coverage about her to externally validate the significance of her work. But this is referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as social networking posts, directories of her own work on the self-published website of her own employer and YouTube or DailyMotion videoclips of her doing her job, and doesn't show even one piece of reliable source content in which she's the subject of any coverage or analysis. Again, notability is not passed by sources in which she's doing the speaking or writing about other things, it's passed by sources in which she's the subject that other people are speaking or writing about — but that describes absolutely none of the sources here, and nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to overlook that problem. Bearcat (talk) 23:58, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:58, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:58, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per detailed rationale by Bearcat. Celestina007 (talk) 01:17, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Better Bathrooms

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

There isn't any notability here. Here's why.

Source 1 is the org's companies house page = primary. 2. Has no indication of editorial standards and seems to consist of direct quotes and information copied from a press release. It certainly doesn't offer any WP:SIGCOV 3. Is an interview and therefore primary. 4. Routine press announcedment. Not SigCov 5. See above (paraphrased from the same press relese. 6. Not RS, routine press announcement and again no SigCov 7. Primary and awards don't count towards the notability of companies 8. Same source as source two. 9. Another short, routine press anouncement in a trade journal largely consisting of direct quotes. Clearly primary. Clearly no indication of editorial standards. 10. Features the CEO not the company. Once again the piece consists of direct quotes and sesationalism while there is no indication that EBM has any editorial independence or standards. 11. Routine press announcement about new store + see above. 12. Another routine press announcement about another new store. 13. Is a promoted story i.e paid media. 14. Another routine press anouncement that uses the same photos as sources 2 and eight which wreerks of chrunalism. 15. Awards do not indicate notability for businesses/organisations. 16. Bears a striking resemblence to two and eight. Possibly paraphrashed by a different "journalist" reading from the same hymn sheet. 17. Titled Better Bathrooms are Best. Article is another routine announcement about another industry award. 18. Routine announcement about an award nomination. Certainly not SigCov and I doubt whether Kitchen and Bathroom News is RS. 19. Company website. 20. Talks about a brush with the ASA but it is essentially news coverage of a single event. Daily Spider Glee (talk) 16:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Daily Spider Glee (talk) 16:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Daily Spider Glee (talk) 16:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:40, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eternal Shadow Talk 19:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as sourced only to its own PR. Mccapra (talk) 06:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Colombia–Mexico relations#Resident diplomatic missions. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Colombia, Mexico City

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

Fails WP:GNG. All this article does is confirm the embassy exists. Embassies are not inherently notable. 1 of the 2 sources is google maps. LibStar (talk) 23:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:42, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:42, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:42, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Colombia–Mexico relations#Resident diplomatic missions, where it's already mentioned. Nate • (chatter) 02:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Colombia–Mexico relations#Resident diplomatic missions as suggested above. There is already a section on the proposed target article and the embassy is not significantly notable enough to justify a standalone article. The title can be redirected to the proposed merge section. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Colombia–Mexico relations#Resident diplomatic missions per above. Not independently notable. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 00:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shalate Sekhabi

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

Insufficient evidence of notability. Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Xclusivzik (talk) 22:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2021-10 ✍️ create

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Rust shooting incident. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Halls

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

WP:BLP1E; no depth of coverage, just mentions in relation to film shooting incident legal proceedings. Any relevant information to this individual belongs in Rust shooting incident. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:42, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree this info should be included on Rust shooting incident. Not enough coverage to merit his own page. Comatmebro (talk) 01:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent notability, sufficient to include in Rust articles. WWGB (talk) 06:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the arguments above. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if you don't want to keep it, why not change it into a redirect w/ possibilities? Also there doesn't seem to be enough emphasis on the contrasting explanations of his involvement on the Rust article. WakandaQT (talk) 04:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Herb Hoover

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

The subject of this article doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. The only acceptable sources are both obituaries, and the rest are FindAGrave, NASA themselves, or Wikipedia (obviously not allowed). Hoover also doesn't appear to meet WP:ANYBIO - I doubt the Octave Chanute Award is prestigious enough for that. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 23:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Subject of article is significant because he was first civilian person in the history of the world to break the sound barrier, the second human being to do so. The Octave Chanute Award https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octave_Chanute_Award, delivered by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. (AIAA), has been awarded to only 57 recipients since 1939, the most recent being in 2019. It is intended for pilots of test personnel that contributed to the advancement of the art, science, or technology of aeronautics.

Subject of article appears in other sources, including https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/from-naca-to-nasa-blessed-from-birth/5/, https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/breaking-the-sound-barrier-an-aviation-turning-point/15/, http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/q0267.shtml, https://www.space.com/22220-x-1-2-with-pilots-robert-champine-herb-hoover.html, https://www.largescaleplanes.com/articles/article.php?aid=177. Superscotchsonic (talk) 12:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other newspaper articles centering on subject: "Famous Civilian Air Research Expert Killed in B-45 Crash" https://www.newspapers.com/image/8498413/?, terms=herb%20hoover%20naca&match=1, "Flying Scientists Unsung Heroes in Nation's Defense" https://www.newspapers.com/image/6635782/?terms=herb%20hoover%20naca&match=1, "First Bail-Out in 17 Years Fatal to Famous Test Pilot" https://www.newspapers.com/image/760940690/?terms=%22herbert%20hoover%22%20naca%20pilot&match=1 Superscotchsonic (talk) 12:27, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not totally convinced on any coverage being "significant" here. These three sources you link (1, 2, 3) only give trivial mentions. I have no way to access the newspaper articles without a subscription, but at least two of them look to just be obituaries. I do think it's possible that these three sources are good enough, but hopefully we'll get some more discussion going here over the next couple of days and see what other people think. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 13:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The "first civilian ever and second man ever to break the sound barrier" is clearly notable. Easily enough sourcing to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, being the first civilian to break the sound barrier seems clearly notable.Jackattack1597 (talk) 19:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per WP:ANYBIO 1 and 2 (recipient of the Air Medal and being the first civilian to break the sound barrier). Sources provided by Superscotchsonic have significantly improved the sourcing of the article. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:39, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Masaki Kurihara

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

Does not meet GNG. Only sources that seem to exist are database entries. Article has been tagged for notability since it was created in 2011 and has remained virtually unchanged. Would have PROD'd but it survived a group AFD in 2011. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 21:16, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 21:16, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Sennecaster (Chat) 21:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draftify only one sentence after a decade since last AfD, and what is listed would fail to meet WP:COMPOSER imo. At a quick glance, it looks like it only survived AfD because it was added as part of a bulk list, not because of its own merits to notability. If someone wants to do the research to bring the article up to standards and maybe even find additional roles bring it to notability standards with a draft, I'd support that. But as it is today, this article doesn't need to exist, and there's no reason to believe it'll be brought up to standards on its own. Canadianerk (talk) 20:57, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - has anyone analyzed the sources available at the Japanese version? Thanks! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:11, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Took a look and found the page: https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%A0%97%E5%8E%9F%E6%AD%A3%E5%B7%B1/ - for anyone who wants to pursue that angle/argument in favour of keeping, or updating the EN article. Canadianerk (talk) 18:18, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist to consider sources/further contributions to discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:43, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete with WP:REFUND if sources are found. I admit that dealing with composer notability is not what I typically discuss at AFD. However, I am not sure this person meets WP:COMPOSER, WP:MUSICBIO, or WP:GNG. According to the website of the event, he did arranging for the song that won the Yamaha Popular Song Contest's award for best song in the 30th event. However, WP:COMPOSER #4 says Has written a composition that has won (or in some cases been given a second or other place) in a major music competition not established expressly for newcomers, specifically stating "composition". I admit I am incredibly unfamiliar with musical terms so apologies if I misunderstood something. It should also be noted that there may be other Japanese-language sources out there, just that I don't know enough about Japanese music websites to know where to look. Link20XX (talk) 16:45, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hijiri Anze

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

Does not meet GNG. Only sources that seem to exist are database entries. Article has been tagged for notability since it was created in 2011 and has remained virtually unchanged. Would have PROD'd but it survived a group AFD in 2011. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 21:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 21:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sennecaster (Chat) 21:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Sennecaster (Chat) 21:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Sennecaster (Chat) 21:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNG and [WP:COMPOSER] don't appear to have been met. Unless someone is interested in taking on research to attempt to bring this article up to standards, delete appears to be the right conclusion. - Canadianerk (talk) 14:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Generally being a soundtrack composer doesn't qualify for WP:COMPOSER on its own and this person doesn't seem to have enough significant coverage to meet WP:BASIC. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kaan Korad

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

A biography on a musician that does not appear to pass the WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. The only source currently being used does not appear to be from a reliable sources. I did a WP:BEFORE search on both the individual and the music group he was previously part of, and outside of mirrors and social media pages, was only able to find passing mentions of both. It was already WP:PRODed once in the past, so I am bringing it AFD. Rorshacma (talk) 17:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 17:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 17:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 17:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I actually found a bit more than I initially expected. I found this interview of him and Kürşad Terci by Milliyet, that he has won an award at the 2017 Donizetti Klasik Müzik Ödülleri, a source about the trio disbanding and him continuing alone, this source of him resigning from his position as "Bilkent University Theater Department Dean" and a bunch of namedrops mostly in the context of organizing things and the music group: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Sanattan Yansımalar (website where 2 of the sources I mentioned are on) has a quite limited scope, which might mean it can't be used to establish notability, so I don't think he individually meets WP:GNG. With that said however, there is a lot of coverage about the Terci-Korad duo/Bilkent trio above, also this, this, this and these two sources about Terci alone. The third member committed suicide last year and sources about his death mention the group as well. So while stand-alone articles don't look likely, I wouldn't object creating Bilkent Guitar Trio and redirecting this there. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 11:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The various name-drop articles are pretty much what I was found, but I admit I did not find the ones that write his name as "Kağan" rather than "Kaan". As you said, even with those sources there might not be enough to establish notability for an individual article so I'll leave this AFD up to hear from others, but that's a great start. Rorshacma (talk) 15:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

National Anti-Vivisection Alliance

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

Way too complicated for PROD. Article created by org founder, who got some press when he was jailed. Website has been inactive since then per the article. According to one of the only independent sources I can find, it really was just a one man "coalition". The article is currently being used to discuss other animal controversies, but it isn't clear that NAVA had any large roll in these protests. I am unable to find evidence via BEFORE that this meets WP:ORG. Star Mississippi 15:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 15:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 15:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 15:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:20, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG. Only 2 Gnews hits. LibStar (talk) 23:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most of the sources are either primary, poor quality (e.g. WP:DAILYMIRROR), or don't actually mention the organization at all (e.g. the BBC article). Fails WP:ORG. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NOQUORUM applies. ✗plicit 00:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extradition (Amendment) Act 1994

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

The article is just about more than the long title of the Act. The only incoming link is from the overall index of Irish Acts. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 14:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG. This Act is included in Irish Current Law Statutes Annotated, with significant commentary. Other sources include, in particular: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]. James500 (talk) 15:24, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am open to considering how this page itself could be expanded, something to consider if we are to keep it. However, the mention of the Act and its discussion in annotated statutes is perhaps an argument for the creation of an article on WikiSource. Wikipedia is not a legislation directory, and what merits coverage elsewhere doesn't automatically merit coverage in Ireland. The Extradition (Amendment) Act 1994 mostly consists of amendments to the Extradition Act 1965, which is a more obvious candidate for its own Wikipedia page, with a section on its subsequent amendment. Although a better proposal seems to me an article on Extradition law in the Republic of Ireland, with separate paragraphs on each of the legal and political developments, up to cases such as Celmer. This a better way of writing an encyclopedic article on extradition, than separate articles on pieces of legislation. That's not to say that there won't be and aren't statutes that merit their own article, but this one doesn't seem to be one. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 11:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Iveagh Gardens: Retaining standalone articles on Acts that satisfy the General Notability Guideline will not turn wikipedia into a legislation 'directory'. Nor would it result in automatic inclusion of all Acts, since GNG would not be satisfied by an Act merely because that Act exists. The fact that this Act itself mostly consists of amendments to three other Acts (including the two Acts of 1987) is not relevant to whether this Act is notable under GNG. This article cannot be transwikied to Wikisource, because it does not satisfy the inclusion critieria of that site, such as s:WS:WWI. Nor does it fail any of the inclusion criteria for standalone articles of Wikipedia, as far as I can see. We presently do not have an article on the "Extradition law of the Republic of Ireland", or on the Extradition Act 1965. I could create an article on the "Extradition law of the Republic of Ireland" (see eg [17]), but I am not presently prepared to create such an article unless this nomination is withdrawn and closed first. If you want me to create such an article, you should withdraw this nomination. If you want me to write an article on any other branch of Irish law (or if you want me to write an article on anything else, or if you want me to expand an existing article), you should put a request on my user talk page instead of starting an Afd. James500 (talk) 01:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I should say I don't have any fundamental problem with there being an article for this Act. Indeed, I'm sure there are a decent number of acts each year that editors could write decent articles on. I highlighted this article because that did not happen in this case. It has remained as the barest stub and as a near-orphan for over 13 years, after editing for copyright issues in 2008. If this article is going to be expanded, then let's keep it. I'll admit that this isn't an appeal to general notability guidelines, but in this case, on how the page has operated in practice. At the moment, there's little added value to this page being on Wikipedia. (On a side note, I wouldn't ask any other directly to write any particular editor; we each have our own time and interests here, so it would be feel presumptuous to request a particular editor to write a particular editor!) Iveagh Gardens (talk) 07:28, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:11, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:09, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kristian Gravenor

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

Entirely composed of unsourced statements, almost all of which are of questionable factuality. Source searching for this individual shows a number of mentions, but I am having trouble finding sources that meet WP:GNG. The most coverage I've found so far is the Montreal Gazette article cited on the page, which is largely based on statements by the subject. Regardless of notability, the article as it currently exists appears highly promotional and does not reliably back up any of its claims. Removing the uncited content would result in a blank page, save perhaps for a statement about a book he authored and the business info cited by a newspaper article I have been unable to verify. I would have tried WP:G11 but it appears the tag was added and removed already without an explanation. ASUKITE 21:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note:This is actually the first nomination for this article, as far as I can tell. It looks like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristian Gravenor may have been created in error. ASUKITE 22:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ASUKITE 21:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ASUKITE 21:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ASUKITE 21:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. ASUKITE 21:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's a lot of completely unsourced content here, suggesting conflict of interest editing by somebody with insider knowledge, but there's very little evidence that he would actually pass WP:CREATIVE: one review of one book in his hometown local newspaper is not in and of itself enough coverage to establish the notability of said book. Since the "first AFD" wasn't really a true AFD discussion, but actually a misplaced attempt to begin creating this article in the wrong venue for that, I've deleted it and moved this page to the undisambiguated title. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Actor had one significant role and the article exists primarily on that basis. The opinions are that this is very much on the borderline of notability, but on balance, there is not enough clear consensus to judge conclusively. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Wall

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

The only notable role of Wall's I can identify is her 4-season stint in The Bill as Di Worrell. The only notable page regarding this role is apparently a depiction of the character in a painting.

All in all, not enough to satisfy WP:NACTOR. -- Pingumeister^(talk) 18:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Pingumeister^(talk) 18:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. -- Pingumeister^(talk) 18:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. -- Pingumeister^(talk) 18:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think four years in a prime time ITV drama is notable, the British Film Institute lists 80+ episodes that she was in https://www2.bfi.org.uk/films-tv-people/4ce2bbb874aa8 also mentioned on the BBC when she took up the role full time http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/325079.stm Piecesofuk (talk) 15:23, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I recognise her from the The Bill but she has been going since 1994. I see she is represented in a art work by Bod Mellor in the Tate [18]]. There is some other coverage on her but it is very minor. scope_creep^Talk 16:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Borderline case, but only having one significant role in a notable work isn't enough to satisfy WP:NACTOR and there doesn't appear to be enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:36, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Several comments assert they are "borderline", more input needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Given her long-running role in The Bill, I would have no objection to the article remaining, even though it's a borderline case. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, gidonb (talk) 02:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've added as refs a couple of articles digitised from the Daily Mirror in 2001, directly about, and interviewing, Wall. Still just regarding the one role on The Bill. -- Pingumeister^(talk) 20:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mone Pore Tomake

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

This was previously deleted as the result of a proposed deletion by Donaldd23 in March 2021. Recently it has been recreated with four sources. I doubt the author has actually consulted the first two, which are long dead links. Given their titles, dates (15 years after the film was released), and what content they're used to support, it is unlikely that they contained significant coverage of the film. More probably, they're like the third source, which contains a single sentence about it, to the effect that Riaz Ahmed was in school when he made his Bangladeshi debut in the film. The fourth source, BMDB, is not reliable because it says it has copied from Wikipedia, but doesn't say what, so it must be assumed to be WP:CIRCULAR. Searches of the usual types found nothing deeper than passing mentions, no significant coverage. --Worldbruce (talk) 21:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 21:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 21:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per nomination, the subject should be deleted. It lacks reliable sources.

Batamore (talk) 07:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keep The film was a commercial success. There are hundreds of websites and news links that mentions the film. So, this film to stay here is explicable. Abbasulu (talk) 13:40, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand that you, as the latest author of an article about it, want to keep it. But can you specifiy any 3 of those many URLs that is independent, reliable, and contains significant coverage of the film? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate list. It aims to treat films in an encyclopedic manner, discussing their development, design, reception, significance, and influence in addition to providing concise summaries of them. If there are no reliable secondary sources containing analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the primary source(s), then Wikipedia should not have a stand alone article on the subject. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG/NFILM. Kolma8 (talk) 04:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:13, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Barcode

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

Short-lived company that was a 2011 no consensus during its period of operation. Sourcing then was mostly non-independent and definitely not in depth, and never improved before the company ceased operation in 2019. I do not find any evidence it passes WP:ORG Star Mississippi 20:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 20:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 20:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 20:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping for Prior AfD participants who remain active: @Theroadislong and Andy Dingley: Star Mississippi 20:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 11:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:48, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, didn't generate enough coverage towards any real notability while it was around. LizardJr8 (talk) 05:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:36, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

3x3 basketball at the Pan American Games

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

3x3 basketball may be notable, and so is the 2019 Pan American Games, but the fact that one event took place during the other does not seem to meet our notability criteria. Salimfadhley (talk) 20:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Salimfadhley (talk) 20:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:48, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I understand the nom, but sports at the Pan American games traditionally have their own subpages like this - see those linked at Pan American Games sports. 3x3 basketball will be played at future games, so the page will only grow. You could argue it's 'too soon' for a 3x3 Pan American basketball page but that's basically just saying 're-create it in a few years', which seems like a waste of resources. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 15:28, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to be a notable competition. As El cid notes above, it will only continue to grow in the coming years as it is relatively new, but I think there is enough currently for an article. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:37, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as clearly Pan American Games Sports are notable and pages on individual sports are valid WP:SPINOFF articles. This information should be WP:PRESERVEed somewhere and I don't see where else on the encyclopedia it belongs. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:28, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No comments, not eligible for soft deletion, I'm not spinning the wheel and sending it for another week. Stifle (talk) 14:38, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Kemy

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

I do not see evidence that he passes NMUSIC with the award being the best claim to notability. On the GNG front While the fr.wiki article is longer, sourcing concerns remain, they don't appear to be independent reliable sources - mostly listings and interview/profiles. Star Mississippi 20:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 20:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 20:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 20:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary).

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting again as previous relist yielded no further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liamyangll (talk to me! | My contribs!) 01:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Satisfaction with Life Index

AfDs for this article:

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

Not a notable statistical index. Appears to have been a one-off meta-analysis journal article by a non-notable researcher. Doesn't seem to be tied to more current "happiness by country" studies such as World Happiness Report. The BBC source [19] is an excellent example of bad science journalism; it is also contemporaneous and largely an interview with him. User:力百 (alt of power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. User:力百 (alt of power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is some indication that it may meet criteria for WP:GNG but more reliable, independent sources are needed. Multi7001 (talk) 04:33, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:46, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BlogShares

AfDs for this article:

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

It may be worth revisiting this article's notability considering that (1) it's now defunct (2) sources are not RS and any remaining sources do not necessarily have SIGCOV of the site. 2008 deliberation was a consensus of DELETE Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BlogShares. WomenProj (talk) 20:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WomenProj (talk) 20:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. WomenProj (talk) 20:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands - no evidence this was ever notable - David Gerard (talk) 14:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find anything that suggests notability --Devokewater ^(talk) 19:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no assertion of notability here.Brayan ocaner (talk) 00:30, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Tiramisu. The consensus is that the individual's notability is insufficient to justify an independent article, beyond mostly copied obituaries. A redirect to the dessert therefore retains the article history if there is future expansion scope, or for creating an appropriate sub-section on the target article. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:18, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ado Campeol

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

Ado Campeol was the owner of a restaurant which claims to have invented tiramisu. The article gives no evidence that he is known for anything else. Moreover, the claim that this restaurant invented tiramisu is refuted pretty definitively on it:Tiramisu and in the one Google Books mention of Campeol. There was recently a flurry of obituaries of Campeol, all pretty much copies of one another, none mentioning any other evidence of notability.

Given that Campeol is only known for his supposed contribution to tiramisu, there seems to be no indication of sufficient notability for a separate article. Macrakis (talk) 19:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Macrakis (talk) 19:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the dessert. As the Italian article explains, Mr. Campeol was credited with creating tiramisu in an initial investigation that was discredited by later research. So far there does not seem to be sufficient material to create something like the George Speck article. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 16:06, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article has several sources listed and is about a person who invented something culturally relevant. It should not be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dietcoke3.14 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tiramisu. The several sources are all obituaries with mostly the same content. His culturally relevant contribution, as far as I can tell, is limited to tiramisu. Since he has no independent relevance, a redirect is appropriate. --Macrakis (talk) 19:06, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Expanded the article a bit and seems reasonable to keep (albeit, a weak one) based on the sheer volume of coverage the obits seem to indicate. However, I don't mind whichever way y'all go. Good luck. Ktin (talk) 02:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additional info. The part about the history of tiramisu itself belongs in that article, not here. What is left when that is removed is a very routine and non-notable biography. Ado is born, inherits the restaurant, claims to have invented tiramisu, dies. --Macrakis (talk) 16:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the dessert. According to the arguments given by Macrakis. Alex2006 (talk) 08:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Campeol has full obituaries in The Times, The Daily Telegraph, and The Financial Times, and that is just checking English language sources. As far as I am aware, we have never deleted an article for someone with a Times obituary. This article easily passes WP:GNG. By way of comparison, look at Jim Delligatti, the creator of McDonald's "Big Mac", he "was not the inventor of the double-decker burger". Edwardx (talk) 10:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GNG says that "significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article". The fact that Campeol's obituary was reprinted by many newspapers probably says more about the meme power of the newly-minted title "father of tiramisu" than it does about Campeol. Has anyone been able to find a mention of Campeol as the "father of tiramisu" or the "papa del tiramisu" from before October 2021? --Macrakis (talk) 20:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tiramisu, as per Macrakis. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Icepondis

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

Article was deprodded by an IP without a rationale. Subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Sourcing is to interviews and PR coverage about his newly released album. Princess of Ara 19:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Princess of Ara 19:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Princess of Ara 19:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Princess of Ara 19:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Celestina007 (talk) 20:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Isaiah Oluwatobiloba where an older version of this article is at mfd. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:24, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: failure of WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO and created by a sock in violation of WP:PAID and WP:COI see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Africa boyz/Archive. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:24, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elsewhere (music venue)

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

Fails NCORP. The only reason it got noticed was to build a representation in Minecraft. scope_creep^Talk 19:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with nominator--and the coverage is not there. Drmies (talk) 21:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a major independent music venue. The planning of it was the subject of a NY Times piece in 2017:[20]. The nominator clearly did not do any research prior to nomination as the claim that it is only notable due to the Minecraft story is ridiculous. There is definitely work to be done to expand the article, but the sources that are now linked in the article demonstrate notability in my opinion. Thriley (talk) 22:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the Minecraft link wasn't there, it wouldn't have been mentioned, which is the true definition of being non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 23:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The coverage was there prior to the Minecraft event. Waddles 🗩 🖉 00:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- What coverage? Two little newspaper articles, and boom you're in the encyclopedia? Drmies (talk) 01:36, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Drmies: WP:BEFORE search yielded many independent reliable sources, most of which were dated before 27 May 2020, and that's significant coverage. Four of those have been added as citations by other users and I've added a little more content to the article itself. Waddles 🗩 🖉 16:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added additional strong citations. The article is a stub and needs to be pushed out. That said, this is a keep in my mind. --Wil540 art (talk) 03:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage in multiple reliable sources. Expansion is possible and desirable. Station1 (talk) 07:42, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as there is enough coverage overall to show notabilityJackattack1597 (talk) 19:48, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Fox Theatre (San Francisco). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:10, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Everett Nourse

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

A former organist with no particular claim to notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Personal assessment of sources in the article:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Pilaz
http://www.sierrachapteratos.org/nourse.html	~ The source is a local chapter of a musical society which in the past gave the subject an award, and the author is unknown	Self-published webpage; author unknown		✘ No
https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Everett-Nourse-2779245.php	Paid obituary	Paid content, author not listed		✘ No
https://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=Fox_Theater	?	Self-published, Wikipedia-like website (see about page)	2x passing mentions	✘ No
https://www.atos.org/san-francisco-fox-theatre		self-published	1x passing mention	✘ No
https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/a78f7ff1-30f6-47ad-94d9-68c9f4a35734/downloads/200409.pdf?ver=1610763667854	Author is daughter of deceased subject	Self-published newsletter, unknown editorial control		✘ No
https://beyondchron.org/san-franciscos-market-street-the-grand-boulevard-for-the-era-of-the-movie-palace/		~ some light editorial policy but most pieces are opinion; website states it is opposed to "mainstream" information	2x passing mentions	✘ No
http://www.theatreorgans.com/theatreorganreplay/Albums.htm	? album listing	self-pub	1x passing mention	✘ No
https://journals.shareok.org/theatreorgan/article/view/3957/3936	Interviewee is not independent from the subject matter (himself) - see WP:INTERVIEWS essay	? The reliability of the American Theatre Organ Society's "Theatre Organ Journal" is unknown. The format here is an interview.		✘ 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) 18:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 18:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 18:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Merge with Fox Theatre. Nourse gains a full entry in this book published by Greenwood Press and reviewed in scholarly publications so I think we can assume this is reliable. A couple of sparse reviews of him as a child prodigy are here. He only gets a passing reference in The Organ Encyclopaedia. The nominator has called the SF Gate obituary a paid obituary. I am not sure where this information has come from and I'm not sure it is true. These two sources seem to suggest that the obituary is actually from a 2000 edition of the San Francisco Chronicle. SF Gate for a time used to be the Chronicle's online outlet (if I understand this correctly). For me that makes the obituary far more reliable. While maybe not the most reputable publication American Theatre Organ Society's "Theatre Organ Journal" did have editorial staff etc so it is at least somewhat reliable. A merge with Fox Theatre makes most sense as his notability stems from being the last organist at the establishment. Still unsure on this and could be swayed. Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also found an AP newswire regarding Nourse's death. Can't figure a way to link it because it's sat within Factavia but here is the text: "VACAVILLE, Calif. (AP) - Funeral services were held Thursday for organist Everett Nourse, who played the console at the old Fox Theater in San Francisco. Nourse died Monday of a stroke. He was 88. Nourse took the job as organist for the 5,000-seat Fox Theater in 1944 and held it until 1963, when the Market Street landmark closed, eventually to be torn down and replaced by an office building. "It is kind of the end of an era," said Edward Mullins of the Jesse Crawford Theater Organ Society. "I'll remember him every time I play the records." The grand Fox Wurlitzer organ Nourse played was installed last year in the El Capitan Theater in Hollywood. He was inducted into the American Theater Organ Society Organists Hall of Fame in 1998. Survivors include a daughter, Jeanne Nourse, 52, of Sonoma." Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:15, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your question as to whether the SFGATE obituary is a paid obituary: the SFChronicle's FAQ states that "An obituary notice is a paid listing". The same exact wording is present on SFGate's 2013 FAQ. Today's SFGate "publish an obituary" section has a pricing section. Additionally, because the family submits the obituary, and because no journalist (indirectly remunerated by the family) is credited for writing or editing the obituary of the article's subject, I tend towards contesting the independence and reliability of SFGate obituaries. The child prodigy mentions, in my opinion, still do not sufficiently contribute to the GNG given that one is a passing mention and the other only four sentences long, although it certainly fulfills verifiability of his early talent. I'm unsure as to how to classify the AP newswire: on the one hand, it is surely not paid for, but it seems to fall within the description that the WP:ROTM essay makes (it's also curious that the person cited in the AP wire is the interviewer of source #8). As for the entry in the book, I don't know what to quite make of it yet, although reliability and independence are as you've demonstrated likely OK. Since the words "Everett" and "Nourse" receive only 7 hits on page 164, and 4 of them are already shown in the Google Books excerpt, I assume it's quite short. I'd be interested to see whether it provides in-depth coverage of Nourse, and luckily the book is in a library nearby, so I'm going to be taking a look today or tomorrow to see how it fares. Pilaz (talk) 11:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still struggling to accept the paid status of a 2000 obituary on the evidence of an FAQ page over a decade later but I accept your point this is dubious at best. He gets a whole heap of passing references and I was leaning towards delete until I found the Behold the Mighty Wurlitzer entry. Coverage still seems limited to very niche publications so I can't see justification for a standalone article hence my suggestion of a merge. Unfortunately sourcing for the Fox Theatre article is even worse at the moment (I made a start on improving yesterday).Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Merge to Fox Theatre per User:Vladimir.copic. Nom's excellent source analysis shows that he fails WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 05:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to United Kingdom–Uzbekistan relations. Sandstein 17:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United Kingdom, Tashkent

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

Fails WP:GNG. All this article does is confirm the embassy exists. LibStar (talk) 04:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not sure what WP:BEFORE search yielded, but I found some articles about previous Ambassador Craig Murray (of UK to Uzbekistan)

Turaev, Faruk (2004). "Uzbekistan: The Unquiet Ambassador". Transitions Online (10/26). ISSN 1214-1615.

Murray, Craig (2013-05-24). Murder in Samarkand: A British Ambassador's Controversial Defiance of Tyranny in the War on Terror. Mainstream Publishing. ISBN 978-1-78057-826-2. (written by Craig, can be treats as WP:SPS.

These individual AfD’s argue either two things, the notability of individual embassies or the underlying question whether all embassies are inherently notable or not. There are approximately 15,000 embassies in the world and the question boils down to whether that’s too many for Wikipedia and or whether the X-Y relations e.g. United Kingdom-Uzbekistan relations pages are adequate. Absent significant coverage, I do expect many such embassy articles will remain stubs, but don’t see that as a problem. It’s structured information with strong potential for long term expansion. If a country/mission were to collapse/merge like German Democratic Republic I could see the argument for merging articles less likely to be expanded, but that’s not the case with these live institutions. For the sake of saving everyone’s time at AfD let’s have a proper discussion about fate of embassy articles in general for example here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject International relations#Embassy articles on Wikipedia ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:09, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. How can articles about the ambassador show that the building he works in is notable? Geschichte (talk) 06:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

agree with above, these sources found contribute to Craig Murray not the embassy. LibStar (talk) 23:26, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to United Kingdom–Uzbekistan relations, which is more than short enough to contain this material. Geschichte (talk) 06:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:20, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to United Kingdom–Uzbekistan relations as suggested above. The target article may as well be expanded with relevant content from another article (this one) which doesn't need to be independent at this time. A redirect to the appropriate section after the merge would then be sufficient. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:20, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 14:38, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Trinity Cathedral Senior High School

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

Contested PROD. WP:BEFORE came up with a few WP:ROUTINE mentions, but nothing significant enough to meet WP:ORG. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All I could find is a trivial name drop in a magazine article about a student and something about how they lack certain amenities that was an interview with the principle or something. There's also some trivial mentions in a few news articles about other stuff. None of which makes this pass the bar it needs in order to be notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting again as previous relist yielded no further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liamyangll (talk to me! | My contribs!) 01:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Conti

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

Lawyer doing her job. Has a slot at WGN Radio. Completely non-notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 18:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject has been quoted in media, especially by her employer WGN Radio (as seen here, here, etc), but none of these sources are about Conti; they are on high-profile cases not associated with her. Simply having a job and getting quoted a bit don't cut it without having RS actually about the subject. --Kbabej (talk) 20:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 13:00, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Soccer in Nauru#Representative teams. Some calls to just delete, but this outcome seems to do the least harm, there is consensus that there is some degree of coverage but not enough to justify a standalone article. Plus, given almost every other nation hasa similar article it is a perfectly plausible search term Fenix down (talk) 15:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nauru national soccer team

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted at AfD. Recreated, but deemed ineligible for speedy deletion due to the addition of further references. The two new references simply reinforce the fact that the team doesn't exist, isn't likely to exist, and isn't recognised by the relevant sport governing bodies. It was a redirect for several years and the relevant history is covered at Soccer in Nauru. Lithopsian (talk) 17:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Lithopsian (talk) 17:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The team may not exist now and it may be unlikely to exist in the future, but it did exist at one point. The team played a game against the Solomon Islands in 1994, which is enough for me. – Pee Jay 17:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Soccer in Nauru and mention the one match they played (!) there. Does not merit a separate article. Giant Snowman 18:05, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and again create a redirect. The previous (2nd) AfD examines the sources that were in the article at that time (2017) and shows that they do not establish that an official team has ever existed: the one match was played by a "representative" (unofficial) team. I implemented the suggested solution by creating a redirect at the title, to [[Soccer in Nauru#Representative teams]]. I see that that paragraph now includes one of the two pieces of information from after that AfD that are present in the newly expanded article: "Nauru express disappointment at non-appearance as Micronesian Games open". Inside The Games. 15 July 2018. Retrieved 16 October 2018. (should give the author as Dan Palmer). This source merely mentions football as one of the sports to be included in the Games; nowhere does it indicate what sports Nauru had hoped to field athletes in, so in my estimation it did not merit citing. The other is: "Nauru: Fake website could be catalyst for soccer re-birth". ABC Radio Australia. 2020-07-23. Retrieved 2021-10-28. (should note author Richard Ewart and programme, Pacific Beat). As indicated by the title, this says consideration is being given to creating a national side, but recaps that none has ever existed. As such, although there is new information from the second new source, the expansion from a redirect was nonetheless premature. WP:CRYSTAL applies. I therefore advocate doing the same as last time: deleting the article and creating a redirect at the title, which can be expanded if and when an official national team is formed and plays a match. However, there is now an alternative redirect target: Nauru Soccer Federation, created by Gri3720 on 30 July 2021 and mentioned in the ABC source. In the team article this is piped to show as Nauru Australian Soccer Association and abbreviated NASA: this appears to be because of the emblem, which is taken from a website that lists it as the Nauru Amateur Soccer Association; creation of that and redirection to it was the other suggestion in the second AfD. That emblem was uploaded to Commons (I think it may violate their terms as a complex image with no evidence of permission) by Sambamtime, who expanded the redirect to an article, from this not very official-looking website, but "Australian Soccer" in the piped link seems in any case to have no basis in usage. Ola Bjerkevoll (14 August 2020). "This is the real state of soccer in Nauru". Football in Oceania. Retrieved 2 November 2021. (cited incompletely at Nauru Soccer Federation) also refers to a Nauru Soccer Federation, but there is little information available. I think it would be better to redirect Nauru Soccer Federation to Soccer in Nauru as an unnecessary fork (without deletion) and again use the Soccer in Nauru#Representative teams target for this title. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons listed above. Also, my research has not lead me to any mention of NASA other than the dubious, or at least misinformed, sources already listed. The best and most recent source we have which includes information from the current Vice President does not refer to it as NASA. I, of course, do not prefer to merge Nauru Soccer Federation and Soccer in Nauru--Gri3720 (talk) 23:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Maybe it's best to delete the article as there's only been loose knowledge about the existence of the team and the federation. Additionaly, Nauru doesn't have any official football association website or Facebook page (like Marshall Islands) to show that there is football activity going on there. Lastly, even with various articles stating the creation of a national team/federation, it is still yet to happen and most importantly, be announced. I (re)created the article causing this whole mess, so I heavily suggest reverting the page back into a redirect to Soccer in Nauru. (Lithopsian, PeeJay, GiantSnowman, Yngvadottir, Gri3720). ⁠Sambam/TIME⁠ 23:51, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I certainly agree that the team article should be deleted but it is possible for the federation to exist and be notable without the national team achieving the same notability.--Gri3720 (talk) 23:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is the national team of a sovereign nation, and has played an official FIFA game before. Kind of crazy that it would even be considered to be deleted.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: After examining the sources, they indicate that the soccer federation does not consider this a senior international team (yet). The one game from 1994, per one of the two sources on the article for the game, was a game between workers of different nationalities and is not recognized. As such, this national team has not played a game and fails WP:GNG. GauchoDude (talk) 18:00, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Soccer_in_Nauru#Representative_teams. There's good reasons at this AFD for not having a standalone article, but there's no reason why it shouldn't be mentioned at the parent article about soccer in the country as an alternative to deletion. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:14, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Soccer in Nauru] - the article is OK, could pass GNG - but the team hasn't actually played a game. The info in the article is pretty good so just merge to Soccer in Nauru. Paul Vaurie (talk) 03:20, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Nauru Soccer Federation which already has information about this planned international team. Also - link in article is to Nauru AUSTRALIAN Soccer Association. - is that correct? Nfitz (talk) 06:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Soccer in Nauru#Representative teams. This team has played once in 1994 and never again- no evidence of definitive future fixtures either. If/when they've played a substantial number of matches i.e. not just a couple more, then it could be worthy creating a separate article. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 13:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Florganoleptic

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

Appears to be a neologism (on weeeeed) and not a music genre as much as one man's project. Sourcing is unreliable, as it is mostly from youtube or a website called Music of the Plants. The artist himself might get an article but it appears too soon for that. Citing (talk) 17:09, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Citing (talk) 17:09, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2021-08 ✍️ create

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only RS availale is the Detrot Metro Times, and that's little more than a plug for the new weed laws, everything else is as the OP notes, WP:SPS and YouTube. No indication that it passes BASIC. ——Serial 20:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nominator replied that provided sources establish notability. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DC++

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. Sources are either primary (published by DC++ developers directly), blog, interview (partial to the subject), or guides. Anton.bersh (talk) 16:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 16:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 16:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 16:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping for @NemesisAT:. Anton.bersh (talk) 16:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These sources in Russian might provide third-party commentary on DC++ and therefore might help establish notability. However, they are in Russian and I can't determine their quality. https://habr.com/ru/search/?target_type=posts&order=relevance&q=%5BDC%2B%2B%5D Anton.bersh (talk) 16:51, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article has existed since 2004. The nominator seems to, at least in part, use the current state of the article as an argument for deletion, which isn't a good argument. Geschichte (talk) 17:52, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this sounds like a WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP argument. I remember this software back in 2004 and I would imagine there's content out there with a WP:BEFORE search. – The Grid (talk) 00:34, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point me to these sources? I looked for sources, but I only found the dubious material in Russian (linked above). Also, Wikipedia:But there must be sources! is not a valid argument. Anton.bersh (talk) 09:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I'm looking up sources and I'm seeing it's limited. I'm sorry for my earlier comment, I didn't realize the article also includes tables of forks of the article which is barely relatable. – The Grid (talk) 14:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There must've been articles in paper computer magazines. It was used on LAN parties a lot. Ondertitel (talk) 21:13, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. On online search gives decent sources to establish notability.

Well done, I think these sources establish notability. I'll try to incorporate them into the article this week. Anton.bersh (talk) 23:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:12, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Night of Men

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

No indication of notability found to meet WP:NFILM. Htanaungg (talk) 15:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Htanaungg (talk) 15:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Htanaungg (talk) 15:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – The Grid (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NFILM. LibStar (talk) 04:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Alex-h (talk) 12:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bhavani Sre

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

Non-notable actor. Only two roles and started in late 2020. Complete non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 15:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – The Grid (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails notability as an actor as there haven't been multiple films or TV shows with significant roles. Fails notability for music as well. Jay (talk) 06:23, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON as the subject hasn't had enough roles or significant coverage to meet WP:NACTOR. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michellee Fox

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

Chef who has a podcast. Non-notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 15:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources are pretty sketchy, and Google search brings up nothing. Perhaps this chef will become notable at some point, but for now I'm not seeing it. —valereee (talk) 16:24, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't think it passes GNG. PS - If this article is deleted. I hope it won't be 're-created' & made into a 'redirect' like Carley Shimkus was. GoodDay (talk) 17:48, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Hi - I'm the creator of this article and all of these sources were found on the public internet. Totally understand the comment about that 'chef who has a podcast' does not meet GNC. I agree, but believe this article goes beyond that. I would also note that it is often harder for women to get media attention from the largest outlests, but that does not necessarily mean the sources are not reputable or not significant. Thanks for considering. Niente21 (talk 03:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--there really is nothing there in terms of reliable secondary sources; the article has all the hallmarks of COI editing. Drmies (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fatma Serdar

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

The entire article is derived from stats pages from Turkish Football Federation and Soccerway. Aside from that, there are two passing mentions on match reports relating to İlkadım Belediyesi Yabancılar Pazarı Spor. Since Serdar has played only in WP:NOTFPL and youth matches, these games do not confer notability and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate stats database. Most of the Google News hits are irrelevant and the rest are passing mentions. A Turkish search came back with no decent WP:RS coverage. WP:GNG does not appear to be met but I'm happy to look at sources if anyone presents any. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:12, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Without prejudice to change vote to Keep if significant coverage is later found. For my search, I was unable to find WP:SIGCOV for the subject, noting that someone with searching skills for Turkish sources might uncover things I was unable to. Until that point, my vote stands as delete. GauchoDude (talk) 12:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - fails WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:16, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pamuk Güllü Yılmaz

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

For essentially the same reasons as Sude Mihri Çınar, this should be deleted too. The entire article is just a prose version of her Turkish Football Federation stats page. Yılmaz's career in WP:NOTFPL leagues and at youth level do not confer notability. Likewise, her rugby career doesn't reach the heights of WP:NRU. The best sources found in searches, including a Turkish search, are only passing mentions relating to one rugby event at Karsiyaka Haber and Haberler. Passing mentions do not add up to a WP:GNG pass as many recent AfDs have established. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, fails football, rugby union and GNG guidelines. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:26, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Without prejudice to change vote to Keep if significant coverage is later found. For my search, I was unable to find WP:SIGCOV for the subject, noting that someone with searching skills for Turkish sources might uncover things I was unable to. Until that point, my vote stands as delete. GauchoDude (talk) 12:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails notability criteria. Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:15, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 00:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Christmas Special Christmas Special

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

Article was tagged as lacking sources in 2009 and has not yet been updated. Recommend deletion. KNHaw ^(talk) 14:51, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. KNHaw ^(talk) 14:51, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 15:09, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly not notable, but it is badly written. I have no idea of which country it is in! --Bduke (talk) 05:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sibel Nohut

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

Similar case to recently deleted İpek Özgan and Büşra Demirörs. Nohut's appearances at youth level and in WP:NOTFPL leagues do not confer notability. Current references are a stats page and 3 mentions in passing. Google News has nothing at all, Google has only Wikipedia mirrors as does a DDG source search centred on Turkish sources. No evidence to support a claim towards WP:GNG. Also can't see anything towards WP:NACTOR. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Without prejudice to change vote to Keep if significant coverage is later found. For my search, I was unable to find WP:SIGCOV for the subject, noting that someone with searching skills for Turkish sources might uncover things I was unable to. Until that point, my vote stands as delete. GauchoDude (talk) 12:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:15, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Daintree National Park with no prejudice against merging any content editors find signficant. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dagmar, Queensland

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

Population of this locality is zero. Location in dense forest suggests the population has always been zero. On what basis is this notable? Reywas92^Talk 14:06, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Its population is zero and it's in dense forest, because it's part of the Daintree National Park which is part of the UNESCO World Heritage Wet Tropics of Queensland which is noted for its pristine natural condition, natural beauty, significant population of endangered species etc. Since the UNESCO listing (which I have now added to the article), there have been deliberate decisions made to cease logging and agricultural in the Wet Tropics area. [21] Unlike some countries, most of Australia's national parks (especially if protected for their natural wilderness) don't normally have permanent populations (sometimes due to compulsory resumption of private property, non-renewal of pastural leases etc to minimise human impact). Some national parks do have temporary accommodation facilities for rangers and visitors, e.g. cabins, campgrounds etc, if they are not close to other alterative accommodation. And there are usually walking tracks, etc. I'll make some additions to the article along these lines. Kerry (talk) 00:16, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. Of course Daintree National Park is notable, but that doesn't mean this locality, apparently a census district, is notable. The UNESCO listing is irrelevant to the locality, and none of the sources you added mention Dagmar. Any walking tracks also belong in the Daintree article. This is a non sequitur, and there would need to be sources discussing what accomodations are in Dagmar, not just at the park. Or it could be redirected there. Reywas92^Talk 00:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 14:06, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dagmar is a locality (an official administrative subdivision like a suburb boundary within Queensland); it is also a census district but that is a consequence of being a locality/suburb. I have added some further sources on the history but, as I am caught up in a serious family illness at the moment, I cannot get to the library where I would likely find more source material. Kerry (talk) 05:34, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 14:06, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete It doesn't inherit notability from the park, and there's no other claim to notability. At this point no way to pass WP:GEOLAND. Mangoe (talk) 01:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears to be sufficient independent sources to demonstrate notability. Even if that is not the consensus, there's a strong case for WP:ATD as the page could easily be merged to Daintree National Park rather than deleted. Deus et lex (talk) 09:16, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from Daintree National Park, and I'm not seeing any information worth merging to the national park article. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to Daintree National Park. There is well referenced valuable encyclopedic content here, but the locality is not notable in its own right. (The locality's redirect needs to be maintained to maintain completeness of the geography of the shire it is in.) Aoziwe (talk) 12:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Colombia–Paraguay relations. Anything worth merging is still available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 15:48, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Colombia, Asunción

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

fails WP:GNG. Embassies are not inherently notable. The article's 2nd paragraph seems recycled in various embassy articles. LibStar (talk) 01:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paraguay-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable embassy, fails WP:GNG. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 03:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Colombia–Paraguay relations as it is an expected search term. Venkat TL (talk) 14:02, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 01:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Embassies do appear in the news quite often. I added a reference to an article in MercoJuris, an Argentinian newspaper, covering some activities of the embassy in 2017. There is another reference to an article covering a massive legalization event in 2019 in the same embassy. Last year there were some news about Colombian citizens repatriation due to the pandemic, like this one: https://www.elespectador.com/judicial/consulado-en-paraguay-debera-garantizar-regreso-a-colombia-de-ciudadano-con-vih-article/ Therefore, I don't see any lack of coverage. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 19:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:33, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Colombia–Paraguay relations as suggested above. There is perhaps some value in the content but I don't think (at this time at least) it warrants an independent article. There may be scope in future. This is hopefully a fair compromise between deletion (as it won't be an article) and keep (as the page will direct to a relevant article (or section). Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Embassies are not inherently notable, and there is no indication as to why this is an exception. Stifle (talk) 12:24, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rajeev Kumar Singh Lodhi

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

The second source says, he filed nomination papers for assembly election from Syana (Assembly constituency). No source for the claim that he is a minister in Akhilesh Yadav ministry. ~~Can't find any source for being minister.~~ There are other politicians in UP with similar name see Rajeev Kumar Singh, but those are not from Syana. Seems to be an ~~hoax~~ autobiography created by User:Drrajeevlodhi. Venkat TL (talk) 14:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Update: He held an advisor to state government post, that had status of state minister.--Venkat TL (talk) 09:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 14:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 14:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not a hoax, subject is real (and a journalist apparently); regardless fails WP:NPOL. Curbon7 (talk) 04:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment username of article creator is same as subject of article. Sources do not indicate that he's a journalist, rather a politician who has also been an academic. Searching in Hindi for राजीव लोधी (Rajeev/Rajiv Lodhi) I found this, which indicates his mother Hitesh Kumari was an MLA (yes, yes, notability not inherited) and that he was a minister of state in the government of Akhilesh Yadav. I'll continue with more searching. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two more sources (in Hindi) indicating he was a Minister of State: सपा के सम्मान समारोह में हंगामा, उत्तर प्रदेश में सपा की सरकार बनना तय:राजपाल कश्यप. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 08:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Goldsztajn Thanks for the links. I found Amar Ujala newspaper that clarifies the matter. It mentions that Lodhi wanted to contest in 2017 Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly election on Samajwadi party seat. But did not contest probably because Congress alliance partner had their candidate in that constituency. The results of 2017 elections does not mention him. Amar Ujala also mentions that he served on the post of "Pension Advisor" to State government, with the status of state minister. This is not the same as being cabinet minister, as one has to be a major leader AND need to win an election to become a cabinet minister. His post was an appointed one, and party leaders are generally added to such posts. So he has not won any elections so far and thus fails WP:NPOL. There are no source giving in-depth coverage. All sources found and presented so far are covering party events. So he fail WP:GNG too. Venkat TL (talk) 09:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not having won an election does not disqualify from satisfying NPOL; there's nothing in NPOL which excludes appointed positions (eg all US Cabinet positions are appointed and all are inherently notable). What's confusing here is, as far as I understand, in order for one to be a state minister or a state minister (independent charge), one needs to be an MLA. I'm hesitating to !vote keep here because I would prefer to see something which convincingly demonstrates his appointment. The official report of the 2012 UP election results show no indication that he won a seat; the UP legislative assembly website gives no indication he was a member (searching 16th and 17th legislatures and bye elections). So either the claim that he was a state minister is incorrect (perhaps an embellishment left uncorrected), or he was appointed to the legislative assembly sometime between 2012 and 2017, but I can see no evidence for that. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 13:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Goldsztajn to help clear your confusion, you are right that State minister need to win some kind of election. People cannot be appointed to the legislative assembly, they need to win the elections. Yet everyone wants to become a minister and the max number is capped by law. So some of the party loyalists who failed to win elections are appointed as advisors by the political executive and they are given such status, (consider it some kind of honorary title) the party loyalist gets some free perks as a result of this status. I can trust the reporting by Amar Ujala, and consequently I have struck my hoax speculation. It is clear that he has not won any election, and even though he might be a senior party man, he is not notable to the general public who defeated him. The post of advisor is not a major post either. In conclusion, I think he fails WP:NPOL criteria. Venkat TL (talk) 11:46, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NPOL grants notability if the person has assumed an office - which is not the case here. Hence, applicable guidelines would be WP:GNG and WP:BASIC which are also not met. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 21:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As has been noted, original research is not allowed in Wikipedia. Sandstein 17:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

History of Routledge surname 15th to 18th centuries

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

This is a family history of non-notable people; not suitable for Wikipedia per WP:NOTGENEALOGY, also WP:CFORK (more appropriate history now at Routledge (surname)) Linshee ☺ 14:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is less a family history and more just a timeline of passing mentions and WP:PRIMARY records, with the underlying assumption that simply sharing a surname is a sufficient unifying characteristic for a coherent encyclopedia article. WP:GNG fail and major-league WP:SYNTH. Agricolae (talk) 16:33, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They are not a 'Less Family'. They were an integral Border Reiver Family and this page was critical in expanding the knowledge to others. It is not genealogical, but rather researched and historical linking key figures in Anglo-Scottish history. 185.13.50.210 (talk) 13:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would agree with the view that a detailed history of a non-notable family in a specific time period is never going to meet the standard for a Wikipedia article. Much of the content is arguably trivia and, as has been said, it is very like a timeline in places. I also agree with the view that appropriate information about the history of the Rutledge name is best included at Routledge (surname). Dunarc (talk) 21:36, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is not trivia but rather the history of one of the 7 Border Reiver Famnilies, of which each have a Society and a Wikipedia page. This is proven evidence based on decades of research by the Routledge Clan Society. 185.13.50.211 (talk) 12:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article encapsulates and documents 300 years of English/Scottish border strife, a particularly violent period in British history. It is as much about memorializing the dozens of near-forgotten sources cited as it is about following the survival pathway of one ordinary family. non-notable people The Routledge family was "notable" enough within the timespan to have been recorded in numerous primary records, which prove that they were involved in many notable incidents alongside their better-known cohorts, lords, masters, and enemies. As to WP:NOTGENEALOGY, documents for the timespan covered would not be otherwise available at any commercially-oriented family history site operating today, including those cited in the alternate article Routledge (surname). To delete the article entirely would negate significant research effort. To break up the article according to WP:CFORK guidelines would interrupt the evolution of the surname and the intent of the article. Diane Redfern User talk:Diane Redfern

Sorry, but this sounds like your rationale for retention is that it should be kept intact specifically because it is a WP:OR WP:SOAPBOX in need of a WP:WEBHOST. Agricolae (talk) 16:11, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(with some regret) Ultimately delete -- This is a substantial article on family history, which is clearly the result of very substantial research, but it does not belong in Wikipedia. It would be wrong to delete Diane Redfern's article out of hand, because it is a substantial research article. The purpose of asking for it to be userified is to give her an opportunity of copying what she has produced, with a view to publishing it elsewhere. The right venue would be a family history journal or perhaps a county archaeological society journal or a family history website. I would hope that Diane Redfern as its main author can confirm HERE that she has made a copy, so that the result of deleting it is that her substantial work is not permanently destroyed. Wikipedia is the wrong venue for such an article. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is proven evidence based on decades of research by the Routledge Clan Society 185.13.50.211 (talk) 12:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

THe removal of this page is disgusting and the Routledge surname has played a significate part in key British and French History. Only the key persons (non related) have be placed on here. 185.13.50.178 (talk) 13:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thaara

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

The subject is not notable, Fails WP:NFILM. _signed,Iflaq ^(talk) 13:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. _signed,Iflaq ^(talk) 13:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:CRYSTAL at best; the film isn't scheduled to be released until December (link). The Malayalam source in the article is difficult to assess; it resists Google Chrome Translate, and only the lead paragraph can be copied for translation (it says, shooting has started). Narky Blert (talk) 11:32, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:38, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ishara Weeraratna

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

The article relies on sponsored coverage and press releases. The article in Latestly is an advertorial which is republished in Yahoo Life. Similarly, the dailynews.lk article and allasiaweb.com article are effectively from the same press release. The WBOC article is tagged as "sponsored". The remaining sources are either not about him (launch of a charity) or from very low quality sites. Fails GNG and NBIO. M4DU7 (talk) 13:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying me. I didn't notice the sponsored tag, when I was gathering sources, I did a google search, and tried to cite articles about him published within Sri Lanka. Let me know if there is any alternative to deleting the page. Otherwise, I will make sure to spot Press releases and sponsored posts as I am still getting familiar with them, and often can't tell the difference. SX3001 (talk) 13:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 13:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 13:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 13:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most sources are primary, unreliable or interviews, none of which can be used to prove notability. I agree with nominator that it doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. Isabelle ^🔔 16:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Primary and obvious paid sources. Kuru (talk) 13:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:39, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of India, Santo Domingo

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

This embassy does not even exist yet. Coverage is about intent to open an embassy. Also nominating for same reasons:

LibStar (talk) 23:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article passes GNGTEST. This article also passes SNG.

As per SNG

Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards:

The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.
The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization.

Let us discuss these two criteria in details -

The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.

This article is about a diplomatic mission of India to Dominican Republic. By default topic is international in scale.

The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization.

Embassy opening announcement comes from the official government site as well as notable media organizations.^[1]^[2]^[3]

Embassies are notable and even general upcoming construction/proposed projects which are well covered by the media do pass notability and they do get dedicated pages.

Upcoming tallest buildings under construction pass notability and they do get dedicated articles as well.
Upcoming movies do get Wikipedia pages even before theatrical release.

Same way, as long as Embassy opening is announced in multiple notable sources - it should be on Wikipedia.

In short, As per GNGTEST and SNG, this article should be on Wikipedia.

^ "India on a diplomatic spree! To expand its footprints in South America with opening of new missions in 2021". The Financial Express. 2020-12-31. Retrieved 2021-10-10.
^ Delhi, Suhasini Haidarnew (2020-12-30). "India to open missions in Estonia, Paraguay and the Dominican Republic". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 2021-10-10.
^ Service, Tribune News. "India to open three new embassies". Tribuneindia News Service. Retrieved 2021-10-19.

--AbhiSuryawanshi (talk) 01:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For the things AbhiSuryawanshi describes, we have relations pages. India-x relations. Standalone articles about these buildings are of no use whatsoever. Geschichte (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to draw your attention to WP:CONTENTSPLIT. Sometimes two or more distinct topics may share the same base title or similar titles, such as "light", which may refer to electromagnetic radiation, a component that produces light, or spiritual illumination. Sometimes the distinct topics may be closely related, such as Coffea (the plant) and coffee (the product), or thermal energy and heat. Embassy articles have enough content like address, list of Ambassadors, history of diplomatic mission, scholarships given etc. Other sub-articles like list of ambassadors to x country can be redirected/merged into Embassy article. --AbhiSuryawanshi (talk) 00:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We have Country, City, Town articles and even small stub articles are dedicated to small towns and cities. Even within city article, Mayor of city gets separate article and other municipality also gets dedicated page. Same way, x-y relations can have dedicated page along with mention of the Embassy. Embassy page can have its own detailed information like list of ambassadors, local (notable) events and activities hosted by the embassy etc. Ambassador of embassy (if notable) then will get separate page as well. Pages take time to develop over a period of time. As long as basic notability is satisfied - more time should be given to others to develop the <stub> article. Even if article stays in stub stage for longer, it is fine as per wiki standards. I hope these examples make sense. --AbhiSuryawanshi (talk) 04:24, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable embassy, fails WP:GNG. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 03:38, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; These individual AfD’s argue either two things, the notability of individual embassies or the underlying question whether all embassies are inherently notable or not. There are approximately 15,000 embassies in the world and the question boils down to whether that’s too many for Wikipedia and or whether the X-Y relations pages are adequate. Absent significant coverage, I do expect many such articles will remain stubs, but don’t see that as a problem. It’s structured information with strong potential for long term expansion. If a country/mission were to collapse/merge like German Democratic Republic I could see the argument for merging articles less likely to be expanded, but that’s not the case with these live institutions. For the sake of saving everyone’s time at AfD let’s have a proper discussion about fate of embassy articles in general. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 07:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dominican Republic–India relations/Estonia–India relations. Embassies are not automatically notable, and these don't show to be exceptions. Reywas92^Talk 13:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and the subject's failure of WP:SIGCOV. Political projects sometimes fall through, and there is no guarantee that this embassy will ever be built and get staffed/open until it actually happens. Article can always be recreated once the embassy is actually in operation and has sources which pass GNG.4meter4 (talk) 01:45, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - as per the reasons and support stated above. Utkarsh555 (talk) 14:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:48, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Reywas92. The coverage in the references cited is ultimately coverage of relations between the two countries, and almost nothing about the actual embassies themselves. FOARP (talk) 14:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dominican Republic–India relations and Estonia–India relations respectively, as an WP:ATD. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This does not prevent redirecting/merging. Stifle (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Semmel

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

I'm afraid the subject doesn't pass the notability guidelines. He is a director at Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory and an academic, but the citation rates are low, there's no significant coverage, mostly only mentions. As an alternative to deletion I suggest redirect to Applied Physics Laboratory. Less Unless (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete does not pass WP:NPROF, no indication of notability in the article. --hroest 15:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Clearly does not pass WP:PROF. Among the many references, most do not contribute towards GNG. Among the few that might, The Daily Record piece is not convincing to me; it looks more like a copy of a press release than an independently researched story. The Howard Community College link does not have a lot of depth about Semmel. And writing about their own alumni makes the UMBC piece's independence dubious. So the case for having multiple in-depth reliable independent works about the subject is weak. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is something seriously wrong with WP's notability for academics when being director of the John Hopkins APL (a hugely world-famous research centre employing over 7000 people) is considered less an indication of notability than landing the editorship of a specialist journal that hardly anyone reads, or a named chair in a university that was short of cash one year and managed to persuade a millionaire to endow something. It is much, much easier to become a named-chair professor than to become a director of a research institute of even 1/10th the prestige of this one. Elemimele (talk) 18:36, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've been thinking about this, and should apologise for my rather drastic rant above. Here is the more considered opinion: although Semmel appears to fail WP:NPROF, our guiding principle in all matters of notability should be: will our readers have a legitimate interest in the subject in years to come: will they have a legitimate expectation that we should be providing this information in, say, 50 years? The John Hopkins APL is so vastly influential that it is highly likely WP readers in 50 years will be looking at its article and interested in its history. They will undoubtedly ask the question "who were the men and women who guided this organisation as it supervised the human race's first proper look at Pluto (etc.)?". They will want to know the basic biographical details of APL's directors as a matter of encyclopaedic interest. We could put the biographies of the directors in the APL's own article, but in another 50 years they might have reached twelve or more directors, which would unbalance the article. Some (all) of those individuals will have had much wider careers. So it makes sense to give them individual articles. I do think this article should be kept. Elemimele (talk) 21:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 20:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems hard to believe that someone in this position wouldn't meet WP:NBIO, but I agree that the current sources are not sufficient. Unfortunately my searches only turned up passing mentions in interviews and Foreword sections of books. Hopefully someone can find more substantial coverage before this AfD is closed. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with previous comments regarding this article. I consider that the article complies with WP:ANYBIO policy under the "additional criteria", because it satisfies points 1 and possibly 2. My understanding is that Mr. Semmel is the effective recipient of a well-known and significant honor when he was appointed to lead said institution and therefore has the notability required by the policy. His scientific research might also qualify him on the second point. Louie (talk) 05:02, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I'm not seeing evidence of this person meeting WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Being director of this non-profit is an argument that I could be persuaded about, but I do not see enough evidence of its influence at the moment. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:05, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If WP:NPROF accepts named chairs, editors of major journals, high-level appointed positions in academic societies, members of the Royal Society, and so on as notable, this person is failing it on a technicality, not according to the spirit of the rule. -- asilvering (talk) 02:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to India–Paraguay relations. Anything worth merging is available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 15:56, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of India, Asunción

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

fails WP:GNG. This embassy does not even exist yet. LibStar (talk) 23:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paraguay-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article passes GNGTEST. This article also passes SNG.

As per SNG

Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards:

The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.
The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization.

Let us discuss these two criteria in details -

The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.

This article is about a diplomatic mission of India to Paraguay. By default topic is international in scale.

The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization.

Embassy opening announcement comes from the official government site as well as notable media organizations.^[1]^[2]^[3]

Apart from that, Dinesh Bhatia is the current Ambassador of India to Paraguay.^[4]

Ambassador is appointed and Embassy opening plan is announced in multiple sources. Embassies are notable and even general upcoming construction/proposed projects which are well covered by the media do pass notability and they do get dedicated pages.

Upcoming tallest buildings under construction pass notability and they do get dedicated articles as well.
Upcoming movies do get Wikipedia pages even before theatrical release.

Same way, as long as Embassy opening is announced in multiple notable sources - it should be on Wikipedia.

In short, As per GNGTEST and SNG, this article should be on Wikipedia.

^ "India on a diplomatic spree! To expand its footprints in South America with opening of new missions in 2021". The Financial Express. 2020-12-31. Retrieved 2021-10-10.
^ Delhi, Suhasini Haidarnew (2020-12-30). "India to open missions in Estonia, Paraguay and the Dominican Republic". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 2021-10-10.
^ Service, Tribune News. "India to open three new embassies". Tribuneindia News Service. Retrieved 2021-10-19.
^ "Dinesh Bhatia concurrently accredited as the next Ambassador of India to the Republic of Paraguay". mea.gov.in. Retrieved 2021-10-19.

--AbhiSuryawanshi (talk) 01:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For the things AbhiSuryawanshi describes, we have relations pages. India-x relations. Standalone articles about these buildings are of no use whatsoever. Geschichte (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to draw your attention to WP:CONTENTSPLIT. Sometimes two or more distinct topics may share the same base title or similar titles, such as "light", which may refer to electromagnetic radiation, a component that produces light, or spiritual illumination. Sometimes the distinct topics may be closely related, such as Coffea (the plant) and coffee (the product), or thermal energy and heat. Embassy articles have enough content like address, list of Ambassadors, history of diplomatic mission, scholarships given etc. Other sub-articles like list of ambassadors to x country can be redirected/merged into Embassy article. --AbhiSuryawanshi (talk) 00:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To compare light to the above topics is frankly ridiculous. India–Paraguay relations is in no conceiveable way in need of a split. The closing admin will take this into regard. Geschichte (talk) 21:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sincere apologies for ridiculous comparison. I did not suggest SIZESPLIT but CONTENTSPLIT. Example shared suggests why Content split is done. Let me try to give simple example. We have Country, City, Town articles and even small stub articles are dedicated to small towns and cities. Even within city article, Mayor of city gets separate article and other municipality also gets dedicated page. Same way, x-y relations can have dedicated page along with mention of the Embassy. Embassy page can have its own detailed information like list of ambassadors, local (notable) events and activities hosted by the embassy etc. Ambassador of embassy (if notable) then will get separate page as well. Pages take time to develop over a period of time. As long as basic notability is satisfied - more time should be given to others to develop the <stub> article. Even if article stays in stub stage for longer, it is fine as per wiki standards. I hope these examples make sense. --AbhiSuryawanshi (talk) 04:16, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with India–Paraguay relations, Since the building does not exist yet. As explained by Geschichte, the info about the upcoming location should go in a section on the relation page. Venkat TL (talk) 09:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable embassy, fails WP:GNG. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 03:38, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and the subject's failure of WP:SIGCOV. Political projects sometimes fall through, and there is no guarantee that this embassy will ever be built and get staffed/open until it actually happens. Article can always be recreated once the embassy is actually in operation and has sources which pass GNG.4meter4 (talk) 01:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - as per the support and reasons stated. Utkarsh555 (talk) 14:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PERX you haven't given your own reasoning to explain how this meets notability. LibStar (talk) 22:51, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:04, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to India–Paraguay relations as suggested above. The content could be useful but it doesn't need to be in a standalone article. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The building doesn't even exist, for pity's sake. Stifle (talk) 12:24, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 12:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberhero

AfDs for this article:

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

Not a cybernotable cyberconcept. Unduly promoting Dana Klisanin. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Dana Klisanin. I don't see anything in Google Scholar or JSTOR to suggest others have taken up this concept. Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. Ajpolino (talk) 17:50, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 21:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It was agreed to be kept 6 years ago. The arguments in the previous discussion hold on to this day. The sources in the article are reliable. Though the article needs a little clean-up, it's still good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:00, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Superastig, could you elaborate on why you think this passes WP:GNG? I looked for sources but came up empty. In the current article, references 1 and 2, and 10 are by Dana Klisanin (the person who proposed this archetype), I don't see where 3 mentions "Cyberhero" at all?, 4 is a passing mention, 5 is a personal blog post commenting on the paper (ref 1), 7 and 11 are brief Q&As with Klisanin about the paper (ref 1), 8 doesn't focus much on this archetype either -- more on the general phenomenon and has a passing mention of Klisanin's archetype, ref 9 and 1 are the same reference. I searched online but couldn't find anything else. Ajpolino (talk) 16:39, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:33, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 07:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Tech Guy

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. The Template:Notability was removed with the comment that the show is a "Major national show. Notability is not an issue." However, WP:RPRGM is an essay not a guideline or policy and I am unable to find any coverage in independent and reliable secondary sources. The show does not WP:INHERIT its notability from its hosts, guests, or producers. A potential redirect target is TWiT.tv or Leo Laporte. TipsyElephant (talk) 13:06, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 13:06, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 13:06, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 13:06, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We do tend to keep national programs. See WP:NTV. ~Kvng (talk) 15:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:NTV is an essay not a policy or guideline. Generally it would be expected that the show pass WP:N. TipsyElephant (talk) 18:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the reason we have essays is to save us from having to go too deeply down the WP:N rabbit hole for every AfD. We can save some time here by trusting this wisdom. ~Kvng (talk) 15:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Leo Laporte. Fails WP:RPRGM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The subject passes WP:RPRGM (a.k.a. WP:NTV). The nom's position is that WP:RPRGM is not official policy. Your statement here is inconsistent. ~Kvng (talk) 15:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As per WP:RPRGM it's national program syndicated on over 200 stations.[22] Another misuse of the essay WP:INHERIT as the justification for inclusion is the show itself, not simply because the host is notable. Oakshade (talk) 22:28, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Oakshade: would you mind explaining how it's a misuse of WP:INHERIT? I've participated in dozens of AFDs where I've mentioned it in very similar ways and no one has said anything before. INHERIT says that "Inherited notability is the idea that something qualifies for an article merely because it was associated with some other, legitimately notable subjects." and I said above that the show does not inherit notability from people and companies associated with it. I would think that the show needs to have coverage in independent and reliable secondary sources to demonstrate that it passes WP:GNG or an appropriate SNG. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't saying "the justification for inclusion is the show itself" an example of WP:INHERENT? I understand that the primary argument for keep is WP:RPRGM or WP:NTV. Is there a history of consensus somewhere concerning whether or not an SNG that is essay status is enough to keep an article? TipsyElephant (talk) 13:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TipsyElephant: A WP:INHERIT argument would be something like, the station it airs on is notable so this program must also be notable. WP:NTV says that since this is a widely distributed program (syndicated nationally by Premiere Networks/iHeartMedia), there are presumably sources available for it and readers would expect to see it included in Wikipedia. ~Kvng (talk) 15:28, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still confused. Doesn't my original deletion rationale follow the same logic? The Tech Guy does not inherit notability from Leo Laporte, TWiT.tv, Premiere Networks, iHeartMedia, or any of the guests on the show right? It might pass WP:NTV, but that's a separate argument isn't it? TipsyElephant (talk) 15:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's right, establishing notability of the host does not help establish notability of his show. ~Kvng (talk) 03:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:RPRGM. I'm more convinced with Oakshade's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 00:30, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here is a reliable source discussing the show. I do not think that it is a good idea to delete an article about a nationally syndicated radio show carried by 160 stations. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:50, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Blake Kruse

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

Fails notability guidelines. Out of all the refs only 1 is more or less acceptable. No significant coverage found. Also fails WP:NACTOR. Less Unless (talk) 13:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 13:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - minor roles, little to no third party coverage.-KH-1 (talk) 05:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I added an additional source and items to personal life section. I do believe references #1, #2, #13, and #18 are reliable. He does seem to have significant roles in multiples productions. However, perhaps not sufficient coverage from secondary sources? As original author, I now have a better understanding of "nobility." Kookooburra (talk) 08:11, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I located and added an additional mention from Variety - reference #16. Kookooburra (talk) 23:28, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - minor actor in minor roles. Absolutely no in-depth coverage in any reliable sources. Being mentioned as a cast member in Variety does nothing to establish notability. Being discussed in his hometown paper does not establish notability whatsoever when that hometown has a population of under 3,000. The links to actor compendiums and resumes do not establish notability (and most are dead links). The festivals where Swim won awards are not major or in themselves notable. Swim itself is a very minor short film. Ultimately, just a lot of really weak sources. And a lot of bad sourcing is just the same as no sourcing at all. Fails GNG, NACTOR ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 20:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject has had one main role in a film, so he falls shy of the WP:NACTOR threshold. There does not appear to be sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG, either. This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG upcoming a case of WP:TOOSOON.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:19, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is a consensus that this company is not notable under our guidelines. Further owing to the socking and recreation issues, there is an argument to be made to delete, rather than redirect. If an editor wishes to subsequently make a redirect this discussion should not prevent them from doing so. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

InstaShop

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

Note: Personalwiki97 has made a blatant attempt to rig the result of this discussion by substantially changing Robert McClenon's contribution to make it appear that Robert said things very different from what he actually said, and by removing a comment by Adamant1. I have reverted Personalwiki97's blatantly dishonest changes, but I am suspicious that some other edits may have been sockpuppetry. It also seems likely that some other edits posted after Personalwiki97's vandalism may have been influenced by the misleading content posted by Personalwiki97. JBW (talk) 08:49, 4 November 2021 (UTC) Since I wrote the comment above, I have investigated further, and I am now certain, rather than suspicious, of sockpuppetry in this discussion. JBW (talk) 09:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

InstaShop

Non-notable electronic commerce company. There have been two copies of this article, in article space and in draft space, and has been gaming of titles by changing the spelling. The draft has been declined twice. The article has been moved to draft space and moved back to article space. The article has been reference-bombed with non-independent sources, which on inspection all are press releases, interviews, or directory entries.

Number	Reference	Remarks	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	CNN.gr	Reads like a press release	No		Yes	No
2	Bloomberg	Corporate directory information	No	No		No
3	Relationship Science	Corporate directory information	No	No		No
4	Khaleej Times	A press release	No			No
5	Insite OOH	Reads like a press release	No		Yes	No
6	Wamda	Reads like a press release	No		Yes	No
7	Khaleej Times	A press release, same as 4	No			No
8	Bloomberg	A press release about acquisition	No	Yes		No
9	Yahoo	A press release about acquisition	No	Yes		No
10	SME10X	A press release about acquisition	No	Yes		No
11	Irish Times	Interview with executive	No	No		No
12	Bloomberg	Interview with executive about acquisition	No			No
13	Business Live.co.za	Press release about acquistion	No			No
14	Forex News	Press release about acquisition	No			No
15	Gulf News	Interview with executive	No			No
16	Petrol Plaza	Announcement by founder	No			No
17	Arabian Business	A press release about acquisition about charitable activity	No			No
18	Financial Times	A press release about acquisition	No			No

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:18, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:18, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:18, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:18, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of sourcing in RIS. Mccapra (talk) 11:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since the page has been updated with new and reliable sources. Personalwiki97 (talk) 14:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of independent reliable sources. I'm not sure what else there is to say about it then that. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - User:Robert_McClenon has reviewed the sources well! Besides, I found Kathimerini, ArabianBusiness.com, Khaleej Times these recent sources on InstaShop. Mommmyy (talk) 13:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google search has shown that this Arabian company is notable to include in wikipedia. All most all the independent secondary reliable sources have talked about it with a significant coverage. It haven't see anything press in these newspapers company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 102.91.4.220 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— 102.91.4.220 has made no edits other than this one.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a notable company with more than twenty independent sources CNN [[23]], The National Newspaper [[24]], The Reuters [[25]], The Financial Times [[26]], The Gulf Insider [[27]], The Kleej Times [[28]], The Arabian Business [[29]] etc and all of them have coverage. It's a notable company, probably the nominator don't know Arabian independent sources Mukaigurin(talk) 22:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Delivery Hero as per WP:ATD or Delete.

Number	Reference	Remarks	WP:ORGIND	WP:CORPDEPTH	PASS/FAIL WP:NCORP
1	CNN.gr 1	Founders meet Greek President	Yes	No	FAIL
2	CNN.gr 2	Acquisition entirely based on this Announcement	No	Yes	FAIL
3	The National	Entirely based on Interview with the CEO	No	Yes	FAIL
4	Financial Times	See 2 above	No	Yes	FAIL
5	Reuters	See 2 above	No	Yes	FAIL
6	TechCrunch	See 2 above	No	Yes	FAIL
7	Gulf Insider	Relies entirely on an Interview with executive	No	Yes	FAIL
8	Forbes Middle East	Relies entirely on an Interview with executive	No	Yes	FAIL
9	Khaleej Times	Puff Piece, relies entirely on info provided by execs	No	Yes	FAIL
10	MENAbytes	Article 3 days after acquisition.	Yes	Yes	Potential PASS because journalist posts their own opinion/analysis but is it a WP:RS?
11	Total UAE	Based on funding announcement	No	Yes	FAIL
12	Forbes Middle East	Inclusion on Top10 list	Yes	No	FAIL
13	Entrepreneur	Based on company announcement	No	Yes	FAIL
14	Gulf Business	Based on company announcement	No	Yes	FAIL
15	Gulf News	Based entirely on Interview with executive	No	Yes	FAIL
16	Entrepreneur	Article about a different company, mention in passing	Yes	No	FAIL
17	Executive Magazine	Analysis on the overall market	Yes	No	FAIL
18	Forbes Middle East	Inclusion in Top12 list	No	No	FAIL
19	Gulf News	Based entirely from an Interview with executive	No	Yes	FAIL
20	Khaleej Times	Based entirely from an Interview with executive	No	Yes	FAIL
21	Arabian Business	Based entirely on info provided by company	No	Yes	FAIL
22	Gulf News	Based entirely on info provided by company	No	Yes	FAIL
23	Capital.com	See 2 above	No	Yes	FAIL
24	EU Startups	See 2 above	No	Yes	FAIL
25	Arabian Business	Based entirely on info provided by company	No	Yes	FAIL
26	Arab News	See 2 above	No	Yes	FAIL
27	Tech Startups	See 2 above	No	Yes	FAIL

I've copied the table from above and gone through all of the references from the article. The templates for tables all appear to be designed for vanilla GNG but for companies/organizations we have to look at NCORP which applies a stricter set of criteria especially for what can be considered "Independent Content". In summary, WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. There was one article that potentially meets NCORP because the journalist provided their own opinion in places but the website is menabytes.com and I have a question mark over whether this is a reliable source. Either way, one reference doesn't meet the criteria and since none of the other references in the article meet the criteria and I have been unable to find any other references that meet NCORP criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I honestly don't understand how some of the above references can be defined as "FAIL" or "non-independent content". I agree that a few articles contain interviews, but in most of these (as specified in the first table) journalists provided their own opinion. I, therefore, agree with most of the comments here: InstaShop is one of the best-known companies in the United Arab Emirates with numerous accredited sources that talk about it. PS: by visiting the Delivery Hero page you will notice how Redirect InstaShop there would make no sense, as the big companies owned by this holding have their own page.Mahir1994 7:35, 4 Novembre 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppet comment struck JBW (talk) 09:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— Mahir1994 has made no edits apart from this discussion and their user page.

Delete As per Robert McClenon and HighKing. DMySon (talk) 17:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - undisclosed paid-for spam. The shenanigans with this AFD prove this is not a good faith attempt to write an encyclopedia article. MER-C 20:02, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and MER-C. Sources are spammy. Miniapolis 22:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - paid-for spam, non-notable company. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:19, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promospam, fails NCORP. Consider salting, given the nature of the paid promo and socking. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:38, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an advertisement, plain and simple. I would also salt because of the socking and UPE. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:14, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Delivery Hero, which contains information about the topic. I support WP:30/500 or full protection for the redirect to prevent article recreation. feminist (+) 16:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:38, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Hayes (actor)

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

WP:BLP of an actor, not properly referenced as passing WP:NACTOR. As always, every actor does not automatically get an instant notability freebie just because acting roles have been had -- the notability test is not in the list of roles per se, but in the depth and quality of the sourcing that can be shown to demonstrate the significance of those roles: critical analysis about his performances, evidence that he has won or been nominated for major acting awards, and on and so forth. But the only discernible notability claim here is that roles were had, and the only references are IMDb-style directories of voice actors which are not reliable or notability-assisting sources, and that's not enough. Bearcat (talk) 13:20, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:20, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:20, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – The Grid (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is only a list of credits. Subject fails WP:GNG. Neo-corelight (Talk) 22:40, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Webb (pilot)

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

I can't find enough IRS to justify the notability. 2 of the refs are dead, my search has shown an article in LA times about some Richard Webb but it's unclear if it's the same one. WP:ANYBIO crit 2 looks questionable to me. Less Unless (talk) 13:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 13:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Notability just isn't shown here. Waddles 🗩 🖉 01:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing in the article indicates anything of note to meet the requirements for a stand alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 16:39, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 11:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Williams (actor)

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

WP:BLP of an actor, not properly referenced as passing WP:NACTOR. As always, every actor does not automatically get an instant notability freebie just because acting roles have been had -- the notability test is not in the list of roles per se, but in the depth and quality of the sourcing that can be shown to demonstrate the significance of those roles: critical analysis about his performances, evidence that he has won or been nominated for major acting awards, and on and so forth. But the only discernible notability claim here is that roles were had, and the only reference is an IMDb-style directory of voice actors which is not a reliable or notability-assisting source, and that's not enough. Bearcat (talk) 13:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – The Grid (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2021-10 ✍️ create

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liamyangll (talk to me! | My contribs!) 00:07, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "delete" !votes have the stronger policy-based arguments. Randykitty (talk) 15:59, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Capitola Dickerson

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Single obituary and two other references were mentioned in relation to somebody else. scope_creep^Talk 12:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ms. Dickerson, when alive, had a huge and positive influence on successive generations of piano students. Today she's revered and respected and considered as an icon in our town, honored by the mayor and by the town not only because of her lifetime of service to the community but for being a civil rights activist. Even though she never made much money, every Thanksgiving she would feed the homeless. There is an effort underway of putting up a statue of her on the town green. Her pupil Tom Varner went on to become a famous jass musician. This article meets Wikipedia's requirements, with substantial coverage here and here and here, mentioned as a singing teacher in this book. Despite the huge cultural biases in Wikipedia and in society against African-Americans and against women, Capitola Dickerson shone like a bright light.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whether she had a positive influence is neither here nor there. The references above are passing mentions in the whole and don't consitute Depth of coverage. scope_creep^Talk 13:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The lifetime of positive influence is why she earned reliable coverage in the media.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Reliable coverage" is a conflation of two different things - the sources need to be reliable, the coverage also needs to be significant. Melcous (talk) 14:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV] - no one is questioning her positive influence on people or local respect. But wikipedia's notability guidelines have not been met. The 3 references mentioned above as "significant" are (1) an obituary; (2) a passing reference by a student in a context that is pretty clear it is not meant to be someone anyone else is familiar with; and (3) local coverage of her retirement. The fact that students she taught went on to become notable themselves is irrelevant - notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Melcous (talk) 14:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Melcous, do you have dirty hands here? Before you posted Delete, you edited down the article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How on earth is that "dirty hands"? I removed some unsourced non-notable content from the article - I agree that what remains that is sourced does not meet the definition of significant coverage. Please WP:AGF. Melcous (talk) 21:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomwsulcer: That is two personal attacks you have made, which means you strayed into the territory of administration. I would give it a swerve in the future, unles your are looking to be indeff blocked. scope_creep^Talk 23:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to the lack of WP:SIGCOV. Locally she was notable, but I don't see anything besides that which makes her notable enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia. Waddles 🗩 🖉 01:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Solely local coverage and awards generally is not considered significant coverage on Wikipedia. Therefore, the subject fails WP:BASIC. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:11, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as local coverage is perfectly acceptable for a subject such as this (a person rather than a company or organisation). Also there is nothing at all wrong with using a newspaper obituary which in this case of the Star Ledger has significant coverage as does reference 1, passes WP:GNG and there is no valid reason for deletion at all in my view, particularly that "locally she was notable" Atlantic306 (talk) 03:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Except, the normal practice for more than decade now is two obits to make a person notable. Another case of systemic bias. scope_creep^Talk 12:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Solomon

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

Nothing cited in the article counts towards WP:GNG, and I can find nothing better online. Her husband is notable, and almost all coverage in reliable sources is really about him - see WP:NOTINHERITED. Run-of-the-mill businessperson. Promotional article, created by a blocked sock WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 10:28, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edwardx I don't agree with the lack of notability assessment. Is the etiquette for me to provide notability citations in this talk page or edit the article directly to include the citations? e.g. <nowiki>https://www.success.com/author/julie-solomon/</nowki> Matchbox23 (talk) 05:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like the deciding administrator to be aware that tensions between wiki editors and this person's husband erupted last week over the Johnathon Schaech page editing. To remove the page immediately following those events may appear retaliatory. Matchbox23 (talk) 06:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can link useful sources, see the "Introduction to deletion process" link above. The "Success" ref doesn't help the argument for "keep", since it's not independent of the subject (somewhat obviously). WP:BASIC may be of help to you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:06, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lacks sigcov from third party sources. -KH-1 (talk) 05:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 17:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Nest Family Entertainment. Clear consensus below the article shouldn't be retained. However, no consensus about whether to merge or not, so splitting down the middle and redirecting. If anyone wants to merge using their own editorial judgement, they're welcome to. Daniel (talk) 00:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Animated Hero Classics

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable TV series. Dronebogus (talk) 10:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If someone could add https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animated_Stories_from_the_Bible and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animated_Stories_from_the_New_Testament to this AfD that’d be great, as they’re just as bad and bundle-noms are incredibly tedious for me. Dronebogus (talk) 10:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the bundling is complete Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:58, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Molto benne! Dronebogus (talk) 11:55, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP There is a previous AfD for this bundle and the consensus was keep based on the authors attempt to establish notability. The producers of this content are still distributing it today, and there are numerous mentions of awards on their website. https://nestlearning.com/pages/awards-endorsements -- I don't see a reason to disbelieve their claims, especially since those awards were likely given in a period between the 1980s-early 2000s where digital preservation has been somewhat lacking. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but I think that’s basically just WP:PRIMARY without reliable 3rd-party evidence. The last AfD was also a pretty terrible close because it was based on the author’s attempt to prove notability, not an actual confirmation—- basically an appeal to pity. Dronebogus (talk) 14:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - No reason to apologize, you're right. In roughly 5 minutes I was unable to find anything other than a google book mention of their company which was only a fragment and required a purchase to view. I'm assuming good faith on the primary source, and given the era in which that company produced their material, I'm not shocked at being unable to find any reliable sources. However, this doesn't mean it's a non-notable animated series. Given that the company and their original owners still exist today and sells the content is alone notable. The articles could certainly use some clean up and citations, but I doubt those will ever materialize unless someone goes to the painstaking research of digging through microfilm. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The company existing does not make the shows notable. It doesn’t even make the company notable. Notability is not inherited. Dronebogus (talk) 15:55, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Selectively Merge to Nest Family Entertainment The previous AfD was almost fifteen years ago giving it little to no precedential value. That it was considered improved enough to demonstrate notability when a bunch of IMDB links were added is good evidence of just how the perception of notability has changed in that time. The only references in the article are to a pair of subject matter encyclopedias and there seems to be no evidence available that this series had any kind of impact. The supposed list of awards and endorsements are essentially meaningless as none of them are recognized as important in the field of childhood education or entertainment. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I’d recommend just redirecting them. If this closes as “no consensus” I’m going to do that since there’s been no improvement in forever and the one recent “keep” vote wasn’t willing to do the level of research required to prove notability. Not sure it’s worth the trouble anyway since the series doesn’t appear to have had much of an impact. Dronebogus (talk) 07:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete or redirect/merge to a topic suggested above. My BEFORE only found a brief mention in a Chinese academic paper at [30] (not open access, see snippet in Google Scholar). I think we have a ton of movie/TV cruft to clean up - not every media of those types is notable, unfortunately. Ping me if better sources are found. SOFTDELETE is preferable is possible (redirect with preserving history). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:31, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the article has no citations, and there is no real effort to cover the series' reception or impact. I would tag it as a hoax article, as even ther episode list has no citations. Dimadick (talk) 11:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The series exists, a simple image search proves that. I also vaguely recall I might’ve watched it as a kid. So at least it’s not a hoax. Dronebogus (talk) 15:13, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Avilich (talk) 17:49, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet the WP:GNG threshold. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:09, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wouter Van Belle

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

This biography is supported only by external links to the subject's own website, and an entry in a database of some sort. I've searched for better sources, but found no substantive coverage anywhere in independent sources - just affiliated sources, entries in databases, routine coverage, passing mentions, and an interview. (Note that there appears to be another musician by this name - a composer of church organ music - who also crops up in searches.) Girth Summit _(blether) 06:31, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Girth Summit _(blether) 06:31, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Girth Summit _(blether) 06:31, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Girth Summit _(blether) 06:31, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit: Are databases bad reference sources? Im new here. Joaquin89uy (talk) 12:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a translation from Dutch Wikipedia, it needs appropriate attribution to comply with our copyright policy - please take a look at that and add the appropriate tags (see WP:TRANSLATION for more on this). Note that different language versions of Wikipedia have different policies on sourcing and notability, so just because an article exists on another project doesn't mean that it is sustainable here.

Databases are potentially OK sources for information, but they don't really establish notability on there own - lots of databases are pretty comprehensive, including information about every musician ever, not all of whom warrant an article here. What we want are independent and reliably published sources giving the subject substantial coverage, not just an entry in a database.

Dutch-or French-language sources would be fine - English ones are preferred of course, for the convenience of our readership, but that's not essential. I did look for sources in other languages, but didn't uncover anything that made me think notability was clear. I may have missed some though - I'd be happy to reassess if you turn anything up. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:02, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit: Thanks. Joaquin89uy (talk) 20:33, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: insufficiently-sourced biography of a living person. I have searched for better sources and found none. NB: I don't read Dutch (although I do read French), but a search in the Dutch language gave me essentially nothing. There's one source in the article on nl.wiki but I am quite confident that it does not meet en.wiki sourcing guidelines.—S Marshall T/C 12:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Notes: For other editors' convenience, I'll pop a direct link to the nl.wiki article here. In the meantime, I've attended to the GFDL/CC-BY-SA 3.0 compliance issue mentioned by Girth Summit by placing the requisite template on the article talk page so there's no further concern there.—S Marshall T/C 12:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per arguments of User:S Marshall. Skyerise (talk) 23:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 03:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anarya Murshid

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

Non notable young screenwriter. Other than some passing mention or primary source (e.g. interview), there is no WP:SIGCOV about this person. I didn’t find anything on google search. The person didn’t won any major award or anything. Fails every criteria of WP:GNG, WP:BIO. (While searching i also found, on bnwiki, the article about this person created by same author was speedy deleted.) আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 01:16, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom —MdsShakil (talk) 14:09, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2020-2021 Ashanti Gold S.C season

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

Ghanian Premier League was delisted from WP:FPL so this season now fails WP:NSEASONS, it doesn't really pass WP:GNG either. Govvy (talk) 10:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on basis that it fails NSEASONS (although the non-FPL nature is now contested and it might be FPL after all) and GNG. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep @GiantSnowmanThe Ghana Premier league has been a professional league since 1993. Check sources [31][32][33] [34] -- Robertjamal12 (talk) 11:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete regardless of whether or not the Ghanaian Premier League is an FPL or not (something which I don't to weigh in on), I see no evidence that this passes WP:GNG, which is more important than WP:NFOOTY anyway. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Ghanaian Premier League is not in WP:FPL. Go argue that over there if you want it included. Also, article fails WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:14, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Transhumanism. Even some of the "keep" !votes are only lukewarm about this article (I'm surprised nobody brought up WP:TNT). As it has been mentioned that some content may be wort while merging to Transhumanism, I leave the content accessible in the article history. Randykitty (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of transhumanism

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

as mentioned in previous notes [of concern], which have since been deleted, this page is unnecessary and extremely biased. It acts merely as an advertisement for a fringe community, and exists to give that community apparent authority. The links and general direction of this page are biased, with nothing directing to critiques of the ideology of transhumanism. Though apparently cited well, this page and many linking to it are self referential, and merely act as a way to give certain named individuals apparent authority. The main page for transhumanism is far and above enough of a reference on wikipedia 0bvious (talk) 17:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The nominator should note that deletion is not clean-up, and should strike the parts of their rationale that asserts such. Curbon7 (talk) 19:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 19:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The nomination referred to the page as an advertisement. That is simply not true. Meanwhile, the nominator presented zero evidence backing up their claims, including that the "page is unnecessary and extremely biased". The outline, as a WP content navigation aid, is a collection of the subject's article links with descriptions excerpted from those articles -- which is about as neutral as you can get. At the time the outline was created, it was as comprehensive a collection of links to the subject's articles on WP that the author(s) could muster. Any deficiency in topic coverage due to new article creation would show a need for updating the outline rather than deleting it. That being said, there are 4 main reasons to keep this outline (and all other outlines in WP's system of outlines):

1) A WP outline is the equivalent of a subject table of contents. There is enough material on WP about transhumanism to fill a book. It's common knowledge that the information in a book is easier to access when that book has a table of contents. The outline system is the table of contents for Wikipedia, and the Outline of transhumanism serves as the table of contents for that particular subject on Wikipedia.

2) Each WP outline is an example of a tree structure, useful for depicting the hierarchical relationship of topics within a subject, to more easily see the conceptual structure of its content, such as what subtopics fall under each topic.

3) Outlines are lists, which are faster, and therefore more convenient, to browse than prose articles.

4) Each outline is part of one of Wikipedia's content navigation subsystems, with the system of outlines presented at Wikipedia:Contents/Outlines, while the main contents link resides on the menu sidebar which appears on every page of Wikipedia. Go there to see how the outlines fit in to the overall contents system.

Deleting any of the outlines would create a hole in the topic coverage of Wikipedia's outline-based navigation system. Therefore, please leave the outline system fully intact. Thank you. Sincerely, — The Transhumanist 10:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What isn't already covered in transhumanism is TV Tropes-level fancruft. Having an outline doesn't actually help with navigation when that outline tends to the indiscriminate, and we already have a decent enough prose article that functions better. XOR'easter (talk) 07:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:14, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Outlines are a valid form of structure for browsing and navigation. WP:CLN therefore applies. The worst case would be merger to the main article per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE and so deletion is not appropriate. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 09:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Proposal that this Outline is unnecessary and biased still stands. If the Transhumanist editors of Wikipedia wish to work together to produce material pertaining to the many critiques of the ideology, then perhaps they could be included in this Outline and address some of the imbalance here. Topics of much more historical and cultural significance have been given far less attention than this topic. The editors involved in producing and promoting this page and others connected to the transhumanist ideology are a small and outspoken group, adept at bending the rules of wikipedia to make their ideology seem significant. Until the larger question as to the need for so much material pertaining to Transhumanism has been addressed, this Outline should be removed or put in stasis. A significant community level conversation should be had about many of the individual articles linked in this outline. Just because a large number of articles have been associated with a particular topic title (i.e. transhumanism) does not justify the inclusion of an Outline page, as Outline pages suggest a particular authority and significance, which is not at all justified for transhumanism.user:0bvious — Preceding undated comment added 15:15, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but needs serious improvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidcpearce (talk • contribs) 10:49, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This needs more attention from neutral editors of wikipedia. Comments posted here already by several major contributors to transhumanist entries. If argument of bias is to be countered then attention to who is arguing is possibly of importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.205.58.146 (talk) 14:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag with {{{POV}}} and {{{Cleanup}}}. I originally leaned towards delete , however according to WP:CLN there is no reason one topic shouldn't have a category, outline, and navbox if it warrants it. The article needs serious improvement. Firstly, it is almost at half the length of the main transhumanism article which indicates it is overlyinclusive and indiscriminate to the point of losing usefulness. Secondly, if this is to be used as a navigational aid of the topic of transhumanism it needs to include debates and critiques of the ideology - as the main article does. Therefore although i am for keeping the article it should be tagged for cleanup and neutrality. Vanteloop (talk) 16:53, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Xoreaster. The Transhumanism article renders this one moot. -Roxy the dog. wooF 15:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I must point out that the the main proponent of transhumanism on Wikipedia (to the extent that they have chosen "The Transhumanist" as a userid) also happens to be the main proponent of outlines. Make of that what you will. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Much of the above is a bit weird, but the actual reason for deletion is failure of WP:N. Articles of any sort, even those titled "outline", must be about notable topics, and I see no indicationt that the topic "outline of transhumanism" (as opposed to transhumanism itself) has been covered in depth in reliable sources. Sandstein 19:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Boiling it all down, it looks to be, effectively, a POV fork of Transhumanism. I see no reason for there to be two articles on substantially the same subject matter. Stifle (talk) 12:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Initially I was leaning towards Keep, thinking that it was useful for navigation page for the various articles related to transhumanism. But the comments here have convinced me that the overarching factor here is that it boils down to being a WP:FORK of Transhumanism. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:49, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I confess to having a vague sense of disquiet as to the purpose of this article - it is sufficiently verbose that it loses many of the advantages of outline style that justify the separate article in the first place. Compare Outline of Japan or even Outline of Buddhism. Further, I agree with concern of the writers above me would cite forking concerns. I diverge, though, at feeling that any of these points require deletion at this time. I don't understand the notability concern because the underlying subject is notable, and other concerns can be managed with normal editing. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:00, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Sri Lankan protests against proposed Kotalawala Defence University bill

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

Fails WP:EVENT. No WP:LASTING. Information can be presented in General Sir John Kotelawala Defence University Chanaka L (talk) 09:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Chanaka L (talk) 09:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE: Limited protest by a few groups. No significant results of the protests or any follow up action to achieve WP:NOTABILITY. -UmdP 09:45, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 02:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Bandera News Philippines. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYKZ

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

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons as the original nomination:

DYKZ does not appear to meet the base criteria for notability under WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRIT. A search on my end turned up no notable coverage outside of passing references to "interviews on Brigada News FM," for example. There may be sources in foreign languages, but I'm not able to do those searches/verify those sources. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 09:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All but DXFP were redirects until IP edits two weeks ago, and DXFP was redirected per consensus at an AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DXFP) in June. Redirect all five. Consider semiprotecting so that IPs don't do this again—this is somewhat common for Philippines radio stations. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all, per Sammi Brie. I'll let an admin decide on protection, but I'm not opposed to it, they can always create a draft if new sources arise. ASUKITE 16:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I wonder if we should include DWNP, DXZC, DXVA-FM and DXZD as well. I haven't quite gone through web search for sources yet, but the included sources aren't sufficient and there isn't much coverage to indicate significance for any of these. There may be more such articles, this is just what I found from the back of the new pages queue. ASUKITE 19:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect to their respective owners: I created 3 of the articles as redirects to their respective owners since I barely found anything about them. They (along with the others) should be semi-protected to prevent IP users from recreating them. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Restore all redirects and semi-protect. Polyamorph (talk) 09:37, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to respective pages per Samni Brie and semi-protected to prevent another IP edits. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 13:39, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A sockpuppet's comment has been removed from this list. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete with the option to draftify. There's consensus, albeit not the strongest, that the topic is notable, but the article is not in a fit state to be published. Concerns about paid editing have been raised, and remain unresolved. I would be willing to entertain a request for draftification from established editors with no previous history of editing this article, or alternatively from an editor willing to commit to independent review via AfC. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RattanIndia

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

This article is all corporate puffery. The references are churnalism and cannot be used to verify WP:NCORP. It has been draftified once already as corporate puffery and potential COI editing, and passes the duck test as UPE. I would send this back to draft again but that would be move warring and against policy, which is why I have brought it here.

At present the view expressed seems to be that of the corporation with no balancing views

While an article on the entity may be warranted WP:TNT will be required, and any COI/UPE eliminated. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 08:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 08:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 08:33, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. The creator who is editing this page since 2015 is declaring WP:COI only in 2021 when he/she has been asked at the talk page. Despite for so long period, the entity fails WP:NCORP also it lacks credibility because it fails to comply with WP:NPOV. Besides that, there is a strong doubt w.r.t. WP:UPE. -Hatchens (talk) 09:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY and WP:CORPDEPTH. Have made significant additions and deletions that I feel should satisfy the concerns raised by others. Expanded on land controversy, added a water allocation controversy and a financial mismanagement incident. Other stuff too! If this still perceives promotional and in favour of company, let me know! Explaining corpdepth now: subject passes WP:CORPDEPTH. The draftified version indeed was full of puffery. But this version is not and I am curious to learn what portions are being perceived as puffery or non-neutral. Happy to further work on those. If the concerns were with WP:NPOV, could have been speedily deleted too though. G11 is a great tool for that. Putting out WP:THREE and few more

[35], a complete article on the split itself by a staff journalist Jyoti Mukul. There are many more similar articles talking about Indiabulls split. I wanted to cite one in Livemint but I remember livemint is not much of a WP:RS so will stay with Business Standard.
[36] The Indian Express article discusses the company in context of the Land controversy and how it didn't file the petition and later said it didn't need to.
[37] Another IE article discussing the state of Nashik Powerplant written by staff journalist.
[38] A Times of India article on Adani's looking to take over Amravati plant written by staff journalist. I know TOI has no consensus on reliability but while it's not reliable, it's also not non-reliable. In this context, there is independent commentary and it can be considered reliable source.
[39] This one - I find it pretty much gold standard. There is a complete analysis of the company's solar business and how it is in 'sunset' mode.
[40] Another controversy talked in Economic Times about finance mismanagement by in house staff writers.

You will find many more sources about the subject if we do a WP:BEFORE. A lot of those are press releases but there are also sources that effectively contributes to notability. Also, if you would search Indiabulls Power, you will again find more. Hope this clarifies. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 13:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

Thank you Nomadicghumakkad for sharing these sources.Now, let's analyze all these sources and your current ongoing edits. Please do bear with me.

The majority of the sources that you shared are related to this entity's negative coverage. Intentionally, the actual narrative was never used by the creator and somehow you simply overlooked it or subdued it, and passed it in the first place. And just to make it acceptable - you expanded that controversy segment and ended it as per the narrative which shows that this entity is not at fault.

Now, let's look at the source whose actual story was never picked up by the creator;

1.a state government taking over a power plant,

2.another company planning to buy out another plant of this company and

3. Now, after the digging, you have added the NCLT news link which talks about insolvency and bankruptcy ffiling

4.Except for this gold standard link, there was no other negative narrative in the first place.

Why these negative narratives or controversies-related edits were not added in the first place? As an AfC reviewer, have you ever questioned yourself? I would have let this pass but here our concern is not this company - our concern right now is how a reviewer who ranks no.4 in the list of top 100 AfC reviewers in the last 30 days can act so callously? Now, after holding you on these issues... you are trying to expand the article and trying to make a fool out of us.

Now comes another question, you yourself submitting the draft for AFC review and you yourself accepting it? Do you know this is not the correct way? Kindly refer to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation.

Feel free to reply at your convenience. I am looking forward to you as one of the best reviewers in the near future. Please do not disappoint me - it's a request. -Hatchens (talk) 15:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Hatchens, I am not trying to make fool out of anybody - only trying to address the issues that are felt by others. Like I said and told you at your talk page [41], I agree that I should have done a better job at balancing the article, which I have done after I realized that others feel that is was not balanced enough. I am unsure why you are taking it so personally. This is a collaborative project, we make mistakes and work with each other to rectify it. We can also feel differently about things and we have right to. I have worked hard on AFC project for long time and I feel I have understanding of WP:CORPDEPTH since I myself nominate and participate in articles relating to this. My AFD rate is 87% [42] for over 400 AFD discussions and my nomination is 80% [43]. When I accepted the article, I felt it qualified WP:CORPDEPTH and the paragraph I added, I felt that it was sufficient to bring a balance. Now that others have pointed out, I realize it was not as balanced as it should have been and hence worked to fix it. Not sure why you think I am trying to fool someone. Are you taking it personally because I felt differently for Draft:Vin Gupta that you wanted to accept? Like I said before, I was okay for you to accept it if you felt it passed the guidelines and I even helped in cleaning it up. Also, I didn't know that it was an incorrect way. Thanks for letting me know! Though I am reading the page and I am not finding where it's written that I can't submit and accept on my own. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 15:51, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Nomadicghumakkad, kindly get me a better argument. Why should I bother you for Draft:Vin Gupta? Haven't you read my comments over there?

Comment 1: " I'll not override your decision. All I can do is... request you to reassess draft. "

Comment 2: "I would advise all of us... to wait for another reviewers' opinion. This way we can guarantee an unbiased outcome to this AfC. " - from where it looks like I'm offended by your denial.

Don't mix two different things. Here we are talking about your controversial editing, submission, and acceptance of RattanIndia. Let's stick to it only.

Refer this link: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation#Reviewer accepting their own draft. -Hatchens (talk) 16:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may say something but feel differently and act differently. About Rattan, I think I have already explained. I don't see it controversial. What's happening here is the due process. I accept an article because I feel it is notable as per my understanding of guidelines, others feel that it is not and they don't agree with my accept so they nominate it for deletion, I improve the draft by addressing the concerns others have raised and defend the article in AFD. This happens all the time. That's why WP:HEY exists. You are simply trying to corner me because you felt I didn't add as much controversy as you would have liked to. But that's a difference of opinion. After hearing your sentiments about it, I have added more. But you see it as a way to 'fool' others which it is not. And yes, it says strongly discouraged and In those cases, it's basically a formality, since an editor who has the ability to create new pages in article space could have done so in the first place. I feel the same way. What would have happened was - I would have asked the editor to submit it again and then I have reviewed it. So was another formality oriented step in between. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Nomadicghumakkad - Pinging Primefac - not for their vote on this Afd. But, just letting them know how your viewpoints on AfC reviewing are evolving. After all, sooner or later; they need to assess a probationary AfC reviewer. All the best. I'm surrendering and signing off because of unwanted deviation which is happening over this AfD discussion. -Hatchens (talk) 16:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Hatchens, I understand. It has been very triggering for me as well. Thanks for tagging Primefac. I am sure they will appreciate my work over a thousand reviews [44] out of which, only one so far was deleted through AFD. And if they feel my views are not correct, they will help me understand how and guide me how to bring them back to where they should be rather than attacking me. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hatchens and Nomadicghumakkad I believe you have both diverted yourselves from the deletion discussion, and diverted the discussion itself. Please will one or other of you collapse the diversion, including my comment here, so that editors may not be distracted by this interesting discussion unless they wish to be?. One of the {{collapse}} templates will meet that need. I believe you should continue the discussion on one or other of your talk pages. You may disagree. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 17:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A comment on the article creator's Talk page (by Googling the name provided) suggests that they are a senior employee of RattanIndia. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per the nomination, there is too much POV editing and promotional content to salvage the article in it's current form. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The content has changed significantly from the point of time it was nominated and hence I referred to WP:HEY. If there are POV problems in current version, please highlight where and those can also be fixed. Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. I have also reworked on it in a way that it is borderline WP:TNT. Also, WP:LISTED. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 23:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

Comment: Thanks to MrsSnoozyTurtle for bringing out new information about the creator of this page. Still, I'm very skeptical to use such details over Wikipedia because it breaches the privacy of that person. But, at the same time, we cannot ignore it either because the creator is directly working at the Chairman's office of RattanIndia which he didn't declare it... since 2015. I'm not sure what would be the outcome of this AfD. But it is allowing us to get an opportunity to investigate such corporate reputation building on Wikipedia.

Question 1: Why a company like RattanIndia suddenly became active on Wikipedia and intentionally stamping out/subdueing all negative news?

Answer: As a retail investor, when I invest in a publicly listed stock - my first important point of reference is Wikipedia because as we all know passing WP:NCORP in today's time is not every one's cup of tea. Also, we noted that, the creator became suddenly active and did the first edit of 2021 (that was in June) - after a gap of five years (his last edit was in 2017). Why? The reason is very simple; till April 7-8, 2021 the trading price of the company's share was ₹7-8 and in the first week of June 2021 the shares were at ₹17-18 but by the end of the June i.e. 30th of the month it reached ₹44 and by the Oct 1, 2021 media started rolling out the narrative how a penny stock (RattanIndia shares) became a multi-bagger. All the major positive narrative edits from the creator started occuring June 25 onwards and occassionaly the page was de-spamed by the editors like QuiteUnusual and finally the page was draftified by MrsSnoozyTurtle on August 27, 2021. Now, its very much clear that the whole operation of positive narrative building is being run from Chairman's office (of the company).

Question 2: Why I doubt the reviewer? (This is not an attack! This is a question - I hoping that I'm wrong in my assessment)

Answer: The current ongoing development where Nomadicghumakkad's edits, submission and acceptance are in the doubt. As an editor, they could have moved the page directly. Why to even bother for AfC route? AfC route is not at all a mandatory steps for a seasoned editor. If a seasoned editor chooses it, then it depicts their intent to be part of unbiased editing and approval process. Anyway, the AfC route was taken in this case (submission and the review - both are done by the same user). Now, when you get questioned - a typical self-victimization card is being played for a variety of reasons to manipulate others. I would have not objected at all if Nomadicghumakkad has added the rightful content to the draft and moved it. The needle of doubt moved towards them when they expanded the "controversy segment" with company's point of view and passing it off to main article namespace.

Question 3: What are the real life consequences of such edits? Ref: WP:WRW

Answer: In this case, the real life consequences are for two different set of people here. The first one is the company, which is using Wikipedia as one of tools to ~~manipulate~~ influence the stock prices. Other editors can question on this and I have no such hard evidence to prove. But, when the draft was moved to main article namespace on November 1, 2021 - the very next day the stock price of the company jumped from ₹40.70 to ₹43.15 by 10:00 AM at NSE. And most of the trade was executed by retail investor (not instituional buying). The stock was on the downhill since MrsSnoozyTurtle draftified the page (on August 27, 2021) and now today, stock is trading at ₹45.30 and moving upwards since November 2. I'm not saying that other factors are not there to influence to stock price. But, Wikipedia is an extremely potent tool when its pages are being feeded into various stock price terminals like Bloomberg Terminal, and media monitoring tools such as Meltwater, etc. So, we can easily conclude that this page (of RattanIndia) is systematically used by the company to propogate positive narrative and having a strong ulterior motive for doing something, which I believe that they have a hidden reason for doing it.

And, the second set of people who are going to witness a real life consequences because of the edits on this company's wikipedia page are the retail investors; who are not well versed to read the financial statements of the company, but depends on sites like Wikipedia to execute hunch-based buying and selling of stock.

If this kind of activity was detected in the United States, it would had been duly reported to SEC for the direct involvment of the company's higher office who have asymmetric information to influence the stock price. Kindly note, this whole analysis is based on Wikipedia edits and involvement of certain set of editors. There is no direct evidence to nail this company and put an allegation of stock price manipulation but yes there are enough evidence that this company is trying to influence it. -Hatchens (talk) 04:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for a great conspiracy theory! [45] Page stats show 173 visitors in last 30 days. The page is not indexed I think. If you feel because 173 people (in last 30 days) found that company exists which led to the share price increase, it would be a miracle. Just for you to know, India has Diwali Festival right now. On one of the pre-diwali days, there is another festival called Dhanteras on which it is auspicious to invest in metal. But in modern times, folks also invest in stocks. Overall, Diwali festival can explain the fluctuations I guess. But, I don't know stocks too much and this is an educated guess. Yet, I don't see a scientific correlation between Wikipedia page and stock prices. I won't explain myself further. If I had intention to promote the company, I didn't even need to elaborate on controversy. You felt it was in favour of company, I didn't feel so and that's there. Best Wishes and Happy Diwali. Collapsing this again so that the discussion isn't diverted with our internal bickering. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 13:53, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I personally believe this article merits to be kept per the last AfD. However, provided the "miraculous AfC approval" by Nomadicghumakkad - I think this article should be deleted - as the nominator argues. Let it be started from a scratch but since UPE is involved, I seek Rosguill's assistance. Is the AfC reviewer as well a part of UPE group? I don't make any accusations but leave this difficult work to Rosguill ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 15:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if/when I'm going to be able to take a proper look into this; if you want timely anti-UPE advice I suggest you either contact another editor involved in this work or take it to a relevant noticeboard. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you felt that this was to be kept as per first AFD outcome (meaning you consider that the subject is notable), why would my accept appear Miraculous? As a matter of fact, if we look at first AFD, as per the sources cited there, it won't qualify as WP:CORPDEPTH. [46] North America had highlighted that they had defended the subject in past AFD but guidelines have become stricter and hence, those arguments might not be true any more. And they weren't. I had accepted it after my own assessment of new sources cited and those that I found after searching. Also, COI was already declared and informed by the creator at the same venue. I had also clarified right here that I find the company notable but have problem with WP:NPOV. To that, creator ceremonially added a line which I expanded and accepted. The key pain point here is that folks here feel that the way I expanded, it seemed like I was talking in favour of company. I felt I wasn't and was providing a balanced perspective. And when others raised that point, I expanded further to bring the desired balance. Unsure what else is expected out of me. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The subject is notable and the article is acceptable. I would need to investigate the history before making further comments. DGG ( talk ) 05:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Coverage appears to be to be superficial. Stifle (talk) 12:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More uninvolved eyes would be helpful. The discussion so far seems to be between whether history of puffery/COI warrants a fresh start and the article has been modified since the start of the discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with others above that the topic company is notable but the fact that there are significant concerns over WP:UPE means that the article contents, choice of language and headings, choice of references, etc, have all been guided and chosen in an underhanded way in order to influence the perception of the topic company. I say WP:TNT and wait. In much the same principle behind notability, if the company merits an article then an uninvolved third party will write one. HighKing⁺⁺ 08:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The company is significant, and I don't think deletion makes much sense. The article is not particularly extensive, and it should not be too difficult to re-write. Due to its structure, Wikipedia tends to be underweight corporate articles. The problem comes about because most of the pieces about companies are written up by insiders and so inevitably they tend to read like corporate spin, and thus fail the NPOV test. As such, they end up getting deleted eventually. But even though some of the entities are significant enough to warrant an article, once the article on the company is deleted, they are seldom seen again, as the most active Wikipedia editors tend not to be particularly interested in the corporate sphere. Inchiquin 14:23, 10:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:TNT is only valid if it's purely promo or senseless, which is not the case. Sources are valid and this is what afd has to decide.As per WP:ATD remove the line instead of page.Content is helpful but need to twist slightly.Sonofstar (talk) 06:28, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More uninvolved eyes would continue to be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:12, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete :No comments about puffery and other related issues. The entity fails WP:CORPDEPTH according to my analysis. I puts up WP:TNT as the best option. Akevsharma (talk) 00:23, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. I intended to close this as "delete", but am convinced by arguments made in the discussion that an effort should be made to salvage the article. However, I also agree with HighKing that we can not allow Wikipedia to be used as an advertising platform, and every aspect of a UPE article is susceptible to manipulation requiring review. BD2412 T 01:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to University of Texas at Austin. General consensus is to redirect the article. If reliable sources can be found to support the prose, anything appropriate can be retrospectively merged from the article history. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:15, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

University of Texas at Austin School of Undergraduate Studies

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

Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources found. Does not meet WP:NORG notability criterion. Only sources cited are not independent. (t · c) buidhe 08:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 08:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 08:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Or Merge to University of Texas at Austin per WP:PRESERVE. No stand-alone notability that I can tell. FOARP (talk) 08:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion or Merge: No reliable, independent sources listed. Must be deleted if none exist, or merge with UT page, if relevant. Multi7001 (talk) 04:27, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to University of Texas at Austin. Per Multi7001, there is no reliable independent sources listed to make a merger appropriate. However, a redirect to the parent institution is appropriate in this case. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted per G7 by Fastily. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apolinario Linera

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

Fails WP:BASIC. Receives passing mentions in primary sources which confirm his existence. However, reliable secondary sources that cover him in a non-trivial way are absent. The article suggests that he was a politician, but I haven't been able to confirm that, which also indicates a failure of WP:NPOL. Pilaz (talk) 08:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 08:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 08:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 08:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 08:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 08:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment all the sources cited come up as snippets for me, and I can’t find anything else. Mccapra (talk) 11:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted per G7 by Fastily. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sinforoso Canaveris

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

Fails WP:BASIC. Fairly obscure first lieutenant, whose existence is verified by passing mentions in primary sources but whose notability fails to gather significant coverage from multiple and reliable secondary sources which could attest of his historical significance. Pilaz (talk) 07:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 07:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 07:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 07:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 07:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 07:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not seeing any in depth coverage in RIS. A later individual with a similar name seems much more likely to be notable. Mccapra (talk) 11:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to First Lady of Guam. I find Eddie891's contribution the most persuasive. Note the target of this merge isn't exclusive, and some content may be better merged elsewhere per Lajmmorre. Daniel (talk) 22:04, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Chenoweth Pownall

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

If this is all we know about her a standalone article should not exist. Ymblanter (talk) 07:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the article at the moment has zero reliable sources.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Has sufficient references/citation. First Lady of Guam is Notable. SWP13 (talk) 09:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This one's tough, since I focus on WIR. Although I've seen quite substantial coverage about the spouse, I wasn't able to find SIGCOV about her and it could easily be because of the times and perhaps not much were written about her in Guam. In the same way some of the articles for women in Papua New Guinea's notability are often challenged due to the nature of their work (not much fanfare) and contributions to their respective community.--WomenProj (talk) 16:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources are adequate for the period in question. There are certainly newspaper records which could add to the coverage if anyone can find them.--Ipigott (talk) 18:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 04:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep rationales are somewhat weak and assume there is sufficient coverage without offering it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Has sufficient references/citation. First Lady of Guam is Notable. SWP13 (talk) 22:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC) — Duplicate !vote: SWP13 (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.[reply]
Keep - Citations, references, position all notable. Scanlan (talk) 03:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ANYBIO. Also, notability is not inherited. KidAd • SPEAK 19:19, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
merge/redirect: either to her husbands article or to First Lady of Guam. I came here expecting to !vote keep, but have found absolutely no substantive independent coverage that would establish GNG. Based on the time period, if that coverage has not been digitized, I'd still expect to see some inkling of it, but have that has not been forthcoming. Nothing here seems to establish notability independent of her husband. We fundamentally cannot write a substantive article on her (i.e. what she did) with the sources available. Keeping history would allow for recreation should substantive coverage emerge at some time in the future, but it just isn't there from what I have seen-- Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:49, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:28, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I think this should be merged into her husband's article with a redirect from her name - as others say we don't have a record of what she did, but I do think that the page as it provide extra info that is relevant to her husband's. Lajmmoore (talk) 12:46, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:18, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mental Health First Response

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

Non-notable organization. Cannot locate significant coverage in reliable sources. (t · c) buidhe 06:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 06:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 06:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom, fails WP:GNG. Lack of significant coverage. DMySon (talk) 07:01, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NORG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Saint Francis Cougars football with the option of merging any encyclopedic content. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:55, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1998 Saint Francis Cougars football team

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

Fails both WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG. The 1998 Saint Francis Cougars football team was a run-of-the-mill team (2–8 record) playing in the NAIA -- i.e., the fifth and lowest level of college football. The article lacks any sourcing whatsoever, and my searches failed to locate WP:SIGCOV in multiple, reliable, and independent sources. Cbl62 (talk) 06:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I did find this article regarding the creation of the St. Francis football program. While it constitutes SIGCOV of the program, the article is focused on the creation of the program and does not IMO include sufficient in-depth discussion of the 1998 team itself (players, results, etc.). Cbl62 (talk) 06:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Cbl62 (talk) 06:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
comment season articles are kind of a combination of "preference" more than "notability" -- I'm confident that if someone were to dedicate themselves to digging up evidence of WP:GNG for this season, it could probably be done. That doesn't necessarily mean it should be kept because there might be better "merge" targets, such as a combined year article (like 1998-2000) or possibly a conference article for that year. Larger programs tend to warrant season-by-season articles, smaller ones have a different trend. I have no answer at the moment, but I think that answer lies in the drection of editing and merging.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is broad consensus, and rightly so, that all 130 Division I FBS programs warrant season articles. A good case can also be made for the 128 Division I FCS programs. When we dip below Division I, we have 168 Division II programs and another 250 at the Division III level. Finally, at the bottom, we have 96 NAIA programs. This article concerns an NAIA team that compiled a losing record. Cbl62 (talk) 15:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment With all due respect to the ones who would advocate deletion of this article, I would point out that the material included here represents the first year of this program that was conceived and guided to this day by a person who many believe to be one of the most visible, decorated coaches in the entire history of NAIA football. Over the years, I personally have tried to gather and develop material relating to each of the seasons of Saint Francis football, as much as a part of his legacy , whether or not that is an acceptable/expected presentation for NAIA teams of historical stature and accomplishment. Pages are available for each of the seasons until the recent COVID pandemic has affected even my availability and ability to spend time gathering the desired information. Yes, this article currently is something of a stub. Yes, it relates to a losing season, the one and only losing season to date in the entire history of Saint Francis football. I would invite others to help me find more content that would make this a more appealing, worthy article. I would hope that others would see the significance of this season as the beginning of Coach Donley's legacy that now includes back-to-back national championship seasons at Saint Francis. His run began with this 1998 season. I'll leave it for the "experts" to decide whether this content should stay. -- Jlhcpa (talk) 15:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt Donley is a legend, and I have not nominated articles on his championship and near championship seasons. But this particular season doesn’t seem to warrant a stand-alone article. This one is comparable to Donley's early years coaching at Anderson, Georgetown (KY), and California of Pennsylvania -- where 18 of Donley's 19 seasons rightfully don't have season articles. Cbl62 (talk) 17:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, though I was really confident I could find something for this, my search on newspapers.com did not reveal much. Besides what Cbl found all I see is lists of game scores that mention this school and this abut their quarterback. I'm leaning towards delete or merge. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sorry, this is a school with fewer than 2,000 students playing other schools mainly with fewer than 2,000 students in the lowest level of collegiate competition. There's hardly notability for these individual seasons, even the ones they won, and they should all be deleted, or at least merged to Saint_Francis_Cougars#Football. Split a football-specific article sure, but this is excessive and not covered in a significant way. Reywas92^Talk 21:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTBIGENOUGH is a specific argument to avoid in deletion discussions for many reasons. You'll find historically many colleges had a "small student body" but a notable college football program.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

National championship seasons will almost certainly receive the SIGCOV to pass GNG. I have doubts about non-championship seasons at the NAIA level but GNG is the measuring stick, and the topic for today is the 1998 season which I think clearly fails to meet the bar. Cbl62 (talk) 03:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- - There's also a difference between a notable program and needing results pages for each season. My high school had more students than Saint Francis, and probably a lot more game attendance and coverage in the local news. Reywas92^Talk 05:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've broken out Saint Francis Cougars football as a new article. It was previously a redirect to Saint Francis Cougars. This is a potential destination for this and any other seasons that are deemed not be notable enough to warrant a stand-alone article. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, Jweiss11. Redirect or merge could be reasonable outcomes if folks prefer that to deletion. Cbl62 (talk) 05:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Saint Francis Cougars football. Does not appear to have independent notability but redirects are WP:CHEAP. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
merge and redirect really seems to be best here. Need a policy reason? ignore all rules because it will make Wikipedia better.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:10, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect with a potential merge to Saint Francis Cougars football. Thanks Jweiss for creating that spur. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:22, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 12:29, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Attending physician statement

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

I can find very few sources that discuss this much, and none providing significant coverage. I can gather the gist of what the topic is, but not nearly enough to write an article on. Perhaps someone with more business or medicine experience will know somewhere else to look? Otherwise I don't think this meets WP:GNG. Ajpolino (talk) 04:18, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino (talk) 04:18, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino (talk) 04:18, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I prod-ed this Oct 13th and it was de-prodded by Andrew Davidson. Pinging him in case he wishes to share his thoughts. Ajpolino (talk) 04:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Keep I find plenty of sources which discuss these, especially in the context of AIDS. Some specific sources include Quality and the Attending Physician Statement and What You Need to Know About Attending Physician Statement Forms. Note that in non-US countries such as the UK, we don't have these and so readers can't be expected to know what they are. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:01, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per the significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, in addition to those previously linked.^[1]^[2]^[3]

References

^ Gossage, C.D. (1960). "Insurance medicine" (PDF). Canadian Medical Association Journal. 82 (18): 931.
^ Janet I. Beik (2012). Health Insurance Today: A Practical Approach. Elsevier. pp. 225–230. ISBN 9781455708192.
^ Stephens JE. (1978). "Attending physician's (wage-loss) statement forms". Canadian Medical Association Journal. 119 (12).

SailingInABathTub (talk) 20:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as sources provided by Andrew and SailingInABathTub allow the subject to easily meet GNG. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to ASEAN Para Games. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

East Timor at the ASEAN Para Games

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

Fails WP:CS and WP:RS. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 02:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 02:30, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:02, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sourcing issue can be fixed easily by going through the games' games for the references. – robertsky (talk) 19:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to ASEAN Para Games since the main article is small. Also, merge the following to the main article: East Timor at the ASEAN Para Games and Myanmar at the ASEAN Para Games --Bluemask (talk) 04:10, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to ASEAN Para Games. 223.219.212.152 (talk) 06:14, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. As according to WP:CSK, point 1, a rationale has to be offered at AfD otherwise it may be speedily kept. No alternate views have been offered and the only consensus is to keep. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:36, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lotte Holdings

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

It is necessary to delete the Lotte Holdings article. Ridwan97 (talk) 05:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per WP:CSK #1. Nominator has not provided a valid deletion rationale. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:31, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Qwaiiplayer. Also, this is a major coglogramate in Japan/Korea, so I don't foresee any way how this company would fail WP:NCORP. Jumpytoo Talk 18:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to JadaL#Discography. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:18, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

La Tlou' El Daw

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

A quick Google search found no notability to meet WP:NALBUM. Htanaungg (talk) 05:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Htanaungg (talk) 05:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. Htanaungg (talk) 05:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to JadaL as is customary for non-notable albums. In English, the album can only be found at the usual streaming and lyrics sites. A search for its Arabic title reveals more of the same, but anyone who speaks that language may be able to find deeper sources if any exist. The band has four album articles and the others might be candidates for redirecting as well. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to JadaL#Discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:15, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:53, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

V420 Aurigae

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

I don't believe this star is notable. The article, excluding the infobox, is only two sentences long. None of the references are exclusively about this star or a small number of stars including this star. I find no articles in SIMBAD that cover this star in depth. The references in the International Variable Star Index entry for this star don't cover the star in depth, Google returns nothing much, it's not visible to the naked eye. PopePompus (talk) 04:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. PopePompus (talk) 04:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops, SIMBAD does list at least one paper about this star, under its BD catalog name: http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/pdf/1990A%26A...231..354P . I still don't think the star is notable.PopePompus (talk) 04:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I could expand it. Also, I'll deal with notability. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 15:21, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: it has been the subject of four scientific papers and is mentioned in multiple others. That's more than many of the star articles on Wikipedia. Praemonitus (talk) 22:54, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, enough papers written about it to show notability.Jackattack1597 (talk) 19:48, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:36, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kapil Sharma (disambiguation)

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

This dab page is superfluous per WP:TWODABS, WP:ONEOTHER and unanimous consent of participants at Talk:Kapil_Sharma#Requested_move_13_October_2021. In short, there is a primary topic Kapil Sharma which has a hatnote to the one other use of this title; no need for a dab page. В²C ☎ 04:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pretty standard case of a primary topic and one other entry. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - strictly speaking it goes against the guidelines. However, it seems to be a common combination of names in Indian culture and searches show that there are other notable people with similar names. Deb (talk) 08:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not sure whether Kapil Dev Sharma is notable or should himself receive an Afd nomination, in which case TWODABS would still apply. His sole real claim is, as far as I can see, based on being in Marquis Who's Who, which I can't confirm. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That's as may be, but then it's often difficult to find references when there are so many others with similar names (e.g. K. J. Kapil Dev and Kapil Dev). Deb (talk) 16:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons above, but note that there are two other pages, not just one, on people of the same name. Caleb Stanford (talk) 15:46, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:43, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is not consensus to delete the article or anything else other than keep it, though not clear enough to be a consensus, but a default outcome. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Afrikan Black Panther Party

AfDs for this article:

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

All sources given are self-published by the organization or its affiliates. A quick Google search for secondary and tertiary sources only returns one article published by the tabloid The New York Post, while all other secondary/tertiary mentions are by fringe blogs and political websites. CentreLeftRight ✉ 04:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CentreLeftRight ✉ 04:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CentreLeftRight ✉ 04:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There is a little bit more out there in reliable sources directly about the group rather than Kevin Rashid Johnson. Journal of African American History, NY Post, PBS. There is material written by members such as on the IWW site] and several articles in San Francisco Bay View. I'm not an expert on this group at all, but I wonder if merge to Kevin Rashid Johnson might work, even though recently he left the group. Much other coverage that mentions the NABPP-PC is actually his journalism and campaigning. Such as The Intercept.OsFish (talk) 05:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep added further RS to the article. There's now enough reliable sourcing to pass WP:NONPROFIT. Given Rashid is no longer a member of the organisation I don't think a redirect there is appropriate. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:05, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:18, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Freedman

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable - I'm assuming this isn't the same person that is being referred to in the previous PROD on talk page. Known for one thing. If the Company had an article some of this may belong there. Andrewgprout (talk) 03:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep It is not the same person as the previous PROD from 2006. This time, I argue he is notable based on the accomplishment alone. Also officials say it might have been the longest electric plane flight. If that is true, then there is 0 notability doubt. If you look at Cook Strait#Timeline, most of the people who swam the strait + first time people have articles with some only having that accomplishment listed on their articles (Example: Barrie Devenport.) This is no different. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retune Article to Event from the delete !vote from Andrewgprout, the problem is that the pilot, which the article is about, is not notable, but the event is notable. So let's retune the article toward the event instead of the pilot. Elijahandskip (talk) 05:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as proposer - mostly WP:1E with a side order of promotional WP:SPIP. Coverage needs to be much more indepth about the subject of the article to be considered notable. Andrewgprout (talk)

In that case, would the fact that it was the first electric plane flight over the strait (and possibly the longest electric flight over water), make it notable enough for an article? Like should we rewrite the article tuned to the event instead of the pilot? Elijahandskip (talk) 04:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:36, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A 40-minute flight in an electric airplane (which is not even known for certain to be a record) is not worth an article, and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looking at other electric powered aircraft, there is nothing significant about it or the flight, other than it being the first electric powered flight across Cook Strait. Maybe just add a sentance in Pipistrel to cover it otherwise it fails WP:GNG NealeWellington (talk) 09:48, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing notable about this flight and therefore the person flying. Wasn't the longest or farthest flight in an electric plane. Aircraft don't know or care if the surface of the earth below them is water or land, makes no difference to whether they fly or not. No different to flying across a great lake, or the world's largest ranch etc. Canterbury Tail talk 11:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:1E, also GNG. Jr8825 • Talk 01:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (WP:G4, WP:G5 apply) Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 23:09, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shivangi Khedkar (actress)

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

Rejected AfC submission, fails WP:NACTOR. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 03:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 03:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 03:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 03:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Rejected in AfD, moved to mainspace anyway. Nothing changed since last deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shivangi_Khedkar, just 3 months ago). Just G4 this. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note I've speedy deleted the article as a recreation of Shivangi Khedkar created under a new title and edited by socks to circumvent the salting of the original title.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:51, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Giving the benefit of the doubt based on references provided by User:Uucp; strongly encourage that these be integrated into the article, focusing on quality over quantity. Stifle (talk) 12:26, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shelby Davis

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

References do not support notability. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:18, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if I'm formatting this incorrectly, but this man literally had a biography of him and his father published by Wiley 20 years ago. https://www.amazon.com/Davis-Dynasty-Successful-Investing-Street/dp/047147441X/ This is more notable than probably 90% of the people profiled on Wikipedia. Also google news turned up recent discussion of the man in the Economic Times, Forbes, MarketWatch, Motley Fool, and countless others. Put a 'needs citations' tag on it at most. Uucp (talk) 03:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject is employed to offer tips in the Economic Times and CNN Money. The employement annoucement is offered as a the 2nd reference at [47]. The 2nd ref is behind a paywell, but it looks to be by somebody else. The 4th ref is a front page of a business. It is non-rs. The 1st is a book on Google Books. This is a BLP and there is no real secondary references. Doing a before find several references about investment tips, which are mostly profiles. There is nothing here that prove he is notable. scope_creep^Talk 14:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Humbly disagree with this. Poster above seems to have misread the sentence "This month, Money welcomes one of America's premier financial journalists to its ranks--mutual fund specialist Jason Zweig. His reports will appear each month." Zweig is the journalist. Davis was the subject of his first article for Money Magazine. Davis retired from being a money manager about 25 years ago. He has never been a journalist. If he is being written about in newspapers and magazines, it's because he is notable, not because he is writing about himself.Uucp (talk) 04:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I did a proquest search for Shelby Davis. Here are excerpts from the first page of hits, omitting press releases and articles about other people with similar names:

- Shelby Davis: Insider interview. Frailey, Fred W.  Kiplinger's Personal Finance Magazine; Washington Vol. 47, Iss. 8,  (Aug 1993): 66.
- New York Venture Fund: Shelby Davis. Money; New York Vol. 24, Iss. 10,  (Oct 1995): 97
- ValueWalk: Shelby Davis -- Part Five: A Lasting Legacy. Mar 31, 2015.
- ValueWalk: Shelby Davis -- Part Four: Not Just An Investor. Mar 29, 2015
- ValueWalk: Shelby Davis -- Part Three: The Davis Double Play. Mar 26, 2015
- ValueWalk: Shelby Davis -- Part Two: Rules for Investment Success. Mar 20, 2015
- Shelby Davis' investment tips to achieve long-term success. Nagar, Anupam.  The Economic Times; New Delhi [New Delhi]. 15 Aug 2021
- Philanthropist gives Macalester $13.5 million for scholarships. Tosto, Paul.  McClatchy - Tribune Business News; Washington [Washington]. 06 Mar 2008.
- Life father like sons.  Frick, Robert.  Kiplinger's Personal Finance Magazine; Washington Vol. 53, Iss. 6,  (Jun 1999): 80-85
- Waiting for Godot? Clements, Jonathan.  Forbes; New York Vol. 142, Iss. 11,  (Nov 14, 1988): 176

All of these articles are either about Davis or quote him prominently. This is the first page of 26 pages of hits. At a glance, additional articles about Davis appeared in the Financial Times, Fortune Magazine, U.S. News and World Report, Women's Wear Daily (about Davis and his wife), Crane's New York Business, and many articles in the Wall Street Journal and New York Times, spanning a wedding announcement in 1959 to the present day. Davis is retired but was a notable investor and businessman when he was working, and is a notable philanthropist now. Uucp (talk) 04:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These references do not support notability.
Shelby Davis: Insider interview. Frailey, Fred W. Kiplinger's Personal Finance Magazine; Washington Vol. 47, Iss. 8, (Aug 1993): 66. -- interview (primary source), cannot establish notability.

- Are you seriously claiming that if somebody is interviewed by a notable publication that this makes them *not* notable because they are the person being interviewed? The very existence of this interview demonstrates Davis's notability Uucp (talk) 04:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

New York Venture Fund: Shelby Davis. Money; New York Vol. 24, Iss. 10, (Oct 1995): 97 -- i can't tell what this is, and presumably neither can you, because proquest just has bibliographic info. it's only 1 page long fwiw. i would assume it is about the more famous Shelby Cullom Davis, absent further info.

ValueWalk: Shelby Davis -- parts 1-5 - this is a "multi-part series on Shelby Cullom Davis" (not the subject of this discussion), and the publisher of the blog posts is not significant enough to have a Wikipedia article.

Shelby Davis' investment tips to achieve long-term success. Nagar, Anupam. The Economic Times; New Delhi [New Delhi]. 15 Aug 2021 - this is about Shelby Cullom Davis, not the subject of this deletion discussion

Philanthropist gives Macalester $13.5 million for scholarships. Tosto, Paul. McClatchy - Tribune Business News; Washington [Washington]. 06 Mar 2008. This is a 143-word article about making a donation. Nice but does not earn you a Wikipedia article.

Life father like sons. Frick, Robert. Kiplinger's Personal Finance Magazine; Washington Vol. 53, Iss. 6, (Jun 1999): 80-85. Unclear how much of this is about the subject of this discussion. Do you know, Uucp? The abstract is "The patriarch of the Davis family of funds, Shelby Davis, [i.e. not the subject of this discussion] taught his progeny to work hard for what they get in life and to play hard too. And that's what they do." which does not seem promising.

- Almost certainly an article about the subject of this discussion, who has two sons who have gone into money management. Note the use of the plural. Uucp (talk) 04:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Waiting for Godot? Clements, Jonathan. Forbes; New York Vol. 142, Iss. 11, (Nov 14, 1988): 176. This might qualify as an independent, reliable source (can't really tell because Proquest only has bibliographic info) but it is the only one we have have. And it is only one page. Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:11, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

*Keep agree with Uucp assessment. Peter303x (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2021 (UTC) Striking blocked sock. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:25, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peter303x did you see that most of the references Uucp listed relate not to Shelby Davis (the subject of this discussion) but his father Shelby Collum Davis? Not wanting to hound/badger but just wanted to make sure you had seen my inventory and still think the article should be kept. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:44, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually now I'm looking at the book ''The Davis Dynasty: Fifty Years of Successful Investing on Wall Street''. This is a good source. Wondering if this plus the remaining very thin sources would be sufficient. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's continue. Providing extensive text to demonstrate that these are not passing mentions. The discussion of Shelby Davis is more than shown here; I'm providing brief excerpts. Note that in the following, The New York Times calls the subject of this discussion "the legendary fund manager Shelby Davis" and Money magazine calls him "a legend". I boldfaced these for this discussion. The New York Times and Money call him a legendary investor. This is not close.

"A different kind of fund family; Third-generation scion makes mark at Davis investment firm" Quinson, Tim. Austin American Statesman; Austin, Tex. [Austin, Tex]. 21 Dec 1996: 3. "Chris Davis' father, Shelby Davis, took a similar approach, though on a broader canvas -- understanding everything there was to know about a company before he put his money or his investors' money there. Not surprisingly, like his father, Shelby Davis also managed to rack up a stellar investment record, running top-ranked mutual funds for the better part of 30 years."
Philanthropists Bank on Investments in Higher Education. International Educator; Washington Vol. 14, Iss. 6, (Nov/Dec 2005). "Investment banker Shelby Davis this fall is helping pay for nearly 700 college students from 100 countries to attend college in the United States. As a result of his generosity over the past five years, reports the Boston Globe, enrollment of foreign students at a number of colleges and universities during that time has jumped significantly: from 6 percent to 10 percent at Colby College and from 6 percent to 8 percent both at Wellesley College and Princeton University, for example."
"All in the Davis Family: Still Picking Winners" Virginia Munger Kahn. New York Times, Late Edition (East Coast); New York, N.Y. [New York, N.Y]. 08 Feb 1998: 8. WHEN the name is Davis, the phrase family of funds can be used literally. Christopher and Andrew Davis, sons of the legendary fund manager Shelby Davis and grandsons of Shelby Cullom Davis Sr., who founded Davis Selected Advisers in 1947, have been nurtured in the family business since childhood. Now both are managing Davis funds and compiling enviable records."
The Great Divide: Stocks Vs. Funds: Two experienced advisers debate the merits of selecting individual stocks versus mutual funds for clients. Special Report. Financial Planning; New York (Dec 1, 1998): 59-72. This is the transcript of a debate, in which the participants debate for a time how good of a money manager Shelby Davis actually was. They are discussing the subject of this article. We know this because they use the present tense, and the older Shelby Davis was by 1998 already dead. "Shelby Davis' performance via a fair benchmark is not all that impressive. I've said that for a long time. One of the problems is what benchmark you compare people to. Compare Shelby Davis to the appropriate benchmark and I don't think Shelby Davis has particularly extraordinary returns."
Top financial experts help you maneuver through '98 USA TODAY's 2nd annual Investment Roundtable: [FINAL Edition] USA TODAY; McLean, Va. [McLean, Va]. 18 Dec 1997: 01E. "Veteran money manager Shelby Davis, of Davis Selected Advisers, one of the best mutual fund management firms, revealed he is suffering from what ails many investors these days: alternating fears of boom or bust."
Opportunity takes place all around the world: World college offers free tuition to eligible students. Brooks, T. Michigan Chronicle; Detroit, Mich. [Detroit, Mich]. 27 Jan 1999. "Shelby Davis, founder, majority owner and Chief CEO of Davis Selected Advisers, L.P., a mutual fund and money management firm with over $20 billion under management and his wife Gale, gave the United World College a gift of $45 million to be used as an endowment for scholarships to eligible students."
What Becomes a Legend Most? Woolley, Suzanne. Money. Jul2000, Vol. 29 Issue 7, p44 "Shelby Davis loves to research stocks. And investors love him for it: His Davis New York Venture Fund has racked up an average annualized return of 15% since he founded it in 1969, trumping the S&P 500's 12.8%."

Would you like more? I can provide more easily, because Shelby Davis has been discussed in prominent publications for over fifty years. Keep Uucp (talk) 04:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Above we have documentation that Shelby Davis was considered a "legendary" asset manager by The New York Times and Money Magazine, both of which wrote about him repeatedly and interviewed him, and that a biography was written about Davis and his father. He has also been written about in dozens of other publications dating back decades. Davis should qualify as notable on the basis of his business accomplishments alone. But, as suggested in the "International Educator" piece quoted above, he is also a significant philanthropist, and per the following citations, I suspect he would qualify as notable on that basis alone as well.
Lewis & Clark: https://www.lclark.edu/offices/international/financial_aid/davis_scholarship/ "Shelby and Gale Davis Visited Lewis & Clark: 2009, 2012. Lewis & Clark is pleased to announce its continuing commitment to the Davis United World College (UWC) Scholars program for the 2020-21 academic year. The Davis United World College Scholars program, generously funded by the Shelby Davis family, entitles graduates of UWCs to receive a need-based grant of up to $10,000 or $25,000* per year towards the costs of undergraduate study at Lewis & Clark." Note that they brag of his having visited their campus.
Semester at Sea: https://www.semesteratsea.org/scholarships/davis-uwc-scholars/ "Shelby Davis is the founder of the Davis United World College Scholars Program, which allows hundreds of students from around the world to attend U.S. colleges and universities. The goal of the Davis Scholars Program is to foster global awareness and understanding to improve international relations."
Brandeis: https://www.brandeis.edu/admissions/affordability/scholarships-fellowships/index.html "Each year, The Davis United World College Scholars Program provides a $10,000 grant from the Shelby Davis Foundation. This grant is awarded to admitted students who demonstrate financial need and are graduates of a United World College."
University of Florida: http://www.honors.ufl.edu/academics/global-honors/davis-uwc-scholars/ another page bragging of his visiting campus to see students whose tuition he was paying for
Tufts: https://admissions.tufts.edu/tuition-and-aid/applying-for-aid/international-student-aid/ "The Davis United World College Scholars program, generously funded by the Shelby Davis family, entitles graduates of United World College Schools (UWC) to receive a need-based grant of up to $10,000 per year toward the costs of undergraduate study at Tufts."
Wartburg College: https://www.wartburg.edu/2020/08/12/leading-educational-philanthropist-shares-his-message-with-wartburgs-davis-scholars/ "Growing up, Shelby Davis’ parents laid out a roadmap for his future: education, hard work, and philanthropy…"
Colorado College: https://sites.coloradocollege.edu/givingstories/2016/06/02/davis-united-world-college-scholars-co-founder-comes-to-cc-shares-road-map/ "Shelby Davis receives Colorado College honorary degree at 2016 Commencement Ceremony . . . May 15, 2016, was a big day for Colorado College’s Davis United World College (UWC) Scholars . . ."
The Phuket <Thailand> News: https://www.thephuketnews.com/uwct-receives-us-1mn-grant-from-us-philanthropist-shelby-davis-64171.php "US philanthropist Shelby Davis recently visited UWC Thailand to announce his donation of US$1 million dollars (B33.4mn) in matched funding to the school"
"Montezuma castle, other Las Vegas buildings now open for tours", https://www.abqjournal.com/543931/montezuma-castle-other-las-vegas-buildings-now-open-for-tours.html, "we are lucky that, about 13 years ago, with the generosity of Shelby Davis, we were able to restore much of this castle."
Gifts of $100 million or more to higher education in 2018: https://apicciano.commons.gc.cuny.edu/2019/02/22/gifts-of-100-million-or-more-to-higher-education-in-2018/ "Shelby Davis Founder and former chief executive, now retired, of the investment-management firm Davis Advisors, in Boston $100 million (pledge) Support to endow 100 annual scholarships a year for 20 years to enable international students to attend one of the system’s 17 campuses around the world, including in New Mexico"

And it goes on. I don't even touch his donations to Princeton above. Nor have we tapped the Wall Street Journal archives, which mention him frequently. Just look at the results of a search like this: https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22wall%20street%20journal%22%20%22shelby%20davis%22 Uucp (talk) 04:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete with the option to userfy if someone is interested. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:50, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody ever returned the page to my userspace for updating pending reinstatement, as I requested at the end of the deletion discussion. Lulu Sun has now fulfilled one of the tennis notability requirements by winning her first ITF 60K title, and will add a second on Monday or Tuesday when she plays her first round match at the WTA 250 tournament in Rabat, Morocco.

I therefore request that the page be restored, as the lack of notability was the only reason for the deletion. Yetanotherkiwi (talk) 12:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lulu Sun

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

Looks to fail WP:NTENNIS upon checking player pages linked in article. Review of other sources show WP:GNG is not met. ~ BlueTurtles | talk 03:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 04:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 04:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 04:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:35, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. W C M_email 07:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article have some coverage, like this https://texassports.com/news/2021/7/11/womens-tennis-lulu-sun-wins-itf-25k-lisbon-singles-title.aspx And also, her stats can be found on https://www.itftennis.com/en/players/lulu-sun/800401004/sui/wt/s/overview/ Oloriebi 08:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could you please advise WHY you think that this particular page should be deleted. You've written "...am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form." What changes do you believe need to be made to make it suitable (assuming that you have something in mind other than the notability guidelines)? Lulu Sun has at least been a junior Grand Slam runner-up. She has also won multiple ITF 25K titles, and is this year's NCAA tennis doubles champion (although I haven't yet added those details into the article). These credentials far exceed many other tennis players who have articles about them in Wikipedia. It would seem pointless to delete this article, only to reinstate it in (for example) three months after she competes in a tournament that qualifies her under the notability guidelines (she has already played in two WTA 125K events). I would also point out that she has a page in the German Wikipedia which considerably predates the one I created in the English version. Yetanotherkiwi (talk) 07:27, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Yetanotherkiwi, apologies for the automated vague notice that was generated on your talk page. I've nominated the page to be deleted based on the notability guidelines of English Wikipedia, specifically, for tennis players that would be WP:NTENNIS. The linked article has 6 criteria for tennis players to meet to be notable enough for a page. To note, she would need to win a 50/100k ITF title or an 125K WTA title which has not occurred yet. To not lose your progress in the article, you can request for the article to be undeleted when she meets the threshold or work on it in your userspace for the time being.

In regards to a page on German Wikipedia, I'm unfamiliar with their notability guidelines but I would note that each language Wikipedia project has different criteria and guidelines for notability. Hopefully this clarifies your questions. Thanks, ~ BlueTurtles | talk 08:37, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueTurtles: While I appreciate your position, she doesn't have to win a 50K+ tournament - she also meets the guidelines if she plays in the main draw of a WTA International (or higher) level tournament. Are you restricting your suggested page deletion to Lulu Sun, or are you suggesting that other pages about different tennis players also be deleted? There are literally hundreds of other players with pages who, on this basis, are even less worthy than Lulu Sun to be recognised by Wikipedia. However, by having a Wikipedia page, anyone with an interest in that player can find their most relevant details in one place. It's a public service that is much appreciated by anyone who uses Wikipedia on a regular basis. Even though those pages may also fall short of being "worthy" if the criteria are being strictly adhered to, what is the point of deleting such pages if they otherwise comply completely with Wikipedia's terms and conditions? Yetanotherkiwi (talk) 09:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Yetanotherkiwi, could you provide me with a link to Lulu Sun playing in the main draw of a WTA International or higher level tournament? I was unable to find one (only WTA125). Also, note that page deletions are considered on a case by case basis, I've only nominated this because I happened to find it. ~ BlueTurtles | talk 10:40, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueTurtles:She hasn't YET played in the main draw at a higher level than WTA125. While I appreciate that deletions are considered on a case by case basis, you also need to be seen to be consistent. If you want to delete this page you need to put up every other similar page for consideration as well. Just because you "happened to find it" doesn't seem like a compelling reason to nominate the page for deletion. I consider that the combination of her junior career, ITF 25K performances AND her NCAA title, taken in totality, make her notable enough for her page to continue to exist. Yetanotherkiwi (talk) 17:24, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Yetanotherkiwi, please see WP:WHATABOUTX and WP:ALLORNOTHING in regards to consistency and drawing comparisons to other articles. Any articles that don't seem to meet notability guidelines can be nominated for deletion. ~ BlueTurtles | talk 03:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueTurtles: If the decision is made to delete the article, I would like it transferred to my userspace to be kept pending resubmission once any of the notability guidelines have been met. I don't want to spend hours recreating the page from scratch once this happens.Yetanotherkiwi (talk) 12:39, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 01:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy to allow Yetanotherkiwi (or other interested editors) to keep working on the article until notability can be established via WP:NTENNIS or WP:GNG. This could be a WP:TOOSOON case, or it could be a case where a tennis player is good but not quite good enough; only time will tell. Iffy★Chat -- 10:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 12:26, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Hobbit (pinball)

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

Article has no Reliable Sources per WP:RS. Ref #1 is a brief mention at https://pinside.com. Ref #2 is the rulesheet for the game at the same website. Ref #3 is the rulesheet at http://tiltforums.com. The four external links all go to https://ipdb.org, the Internet Pinball Database, in different editions. None of these establish Notability per WP:N. Google search finds less than 90 hits, basically all unusable. No current pinball textbook mentions The Hobbit and there are no usable reviews. A PROD was tried and immediately removed so here we are. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:32, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[48] is, AFAIK, a reliable source. This [49] also appears reliable, but the review is very short. [50] is pretty much a blog, but looks like it is a fairly definitive site in the field. [51] looks fine. There appear to be a few more, none of which look amazing. ~~weak keep~~ the IGN source looks fine, the rest are shaky, but probably get us to "multiple" per WP:N. Hobit (talk) 22:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm now at a straight up keep. We've got WP:N met IMO. Hobit (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:N includes references and has been further cited since originally marked for deletion. Admittedly still in stub status but more to be developed and part of a large recognizable media franchise. Expandinglight5 (talk) 06:07, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 01:51, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Added a further reference from an established publisher. Passes WP:GNG based on WP:SIGCOV in multiple independent reliable sources. FOARP (talk) 08:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ The references provided do not establish notability, the new reference provided by FOARP is a passing reference and does not represent significant coverage. Polyamorph (talk) 08:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's two or more paras worth of coverage. Remember the only thing that WP:SIGCOV requires is that the source "addresses the topic directly and in detail". In this case the source tells us the sales price, the development history, the developer, the company they belong to etc. which are all clear details about the product that it addresses directly. FOARP (talk) 09:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two very short paragraphs, I do not see how this establishes notability. Polyamorph (talk) 09:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I count 200+ words, and the book returns to the topic on the following page (albeit this cannot be seen in the preview). Additionally there are the other RS sources now cited in the article (see WP:GAMESOURCES). FOARP (talk) 10:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to the book source, I agree with FOARP that it counts as SIGCOV, as it discusses the development history of the machine. Mlb96 (talk) 21:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly have higher standards. Polyamorph (talk) 06:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but the standard is "addresses the topic directly and in detail". I've enumerated above why I think it does this. In what way, in your view, does it not do this? FOARP (talk) 10:26, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To me it just reads quite casual. But it is a reliable source. Polyamorph (talk) 15:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you are coming from. It's more than "in passing" IMO, but not a lot more. Taken with everything else, I think we're past the WP:N bar, but YMMV. Hobit (talk) 18:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right, it does represent a little more than in passing, that assessment of mine was too harsh. I am still not convinced on the notability. But I'm striking my !vote as the references taken as a whole probably do represent significant coverage. Polyamorph (talk) 19:25, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of diplomatic missions of India. The "keep" !vites are a mix of WP:ITSNOTABLE or WP:ILIKEIT (and one of them was by a blocked sockpuppet). Redirecting to List of diplomatic missions of India so that any content worth merging is still available from the article histories. Randykitty (talk) 16:19, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of India, Sofia

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

fails WP:GNG, the article is based on primary sources. Embassies are not inherently notable and the article merely confirms the embassy exists. Also nominating:

Embassy of India, Bogotá

LibStar (talk) 00:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: I disagree that embassies are not notable. If that is the case, shoudn't the US Embassy also be deleted?Advait (talk) 06:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a reason for keeping. also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. LibStar (talk) 06:08, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Embassies are not inherently notable. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Germany in Palestine, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Sweden, Tirana, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afghan Embassy In Turkmenistan, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Tanzania, Berlin, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Ivory Coast, Ottawa, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Colombia, Beijing, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of The Republic of Serbia, Canberra, ACT. This list was from another user in an AfD. LibStar (talk) 06:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By same logic, just because above articles are deleted that doesnt mean each and every article must be deleted which starts with Embassy word. You have given list of articles deleted and I can share articles which are not deleted. Nothing is inherently notable (or not notable) on Wikipedia unless and until references are provided.--AbhiSuryawanshi (talk) 07:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Article passes GNGTEST as well as SNG criteria.

As per SNG

Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards:

The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.
The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization.

Let us discuss these two criteria in details -

The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.

This article is about a diplomatic mission of India to Bulgaria. By default topic is international in scale.

The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization.

Embassy related updates are covered by Indian media as well as Bulgarian media from time to time. WP:SUSTAINED applies here.

In short, As this article passes SNG and GNGTEST, article deserves to be on Wikipedia. --AbhiSuryawanshi (talk) 08:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Embassy related updates are covered by Indian media as well as Bulgarian media from time to time", where is the evidence of significant indepth coverage? LibStar (talk) 23:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP : AS per the reasons mentioned. Utkarsh555 (talk) 09:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PERX, you haven't stated your own justifications. LibStar (talk) 23:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP : Embassies are notable viz., GNGTEST and SNG criteria. Check the 'Embassy of' categories. --Whiteguru (talk) 15:21, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

embassies are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 23:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Standalone articles about these buildings are of no use whatsoever. We have relations pages, India-x relations, and these are nowhere the size that they need to be split. The above opinions are grounded in a superficial view of policy, and the likeness between the !votes is just strange. Geschichte (talk) 21:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Embassies are not just like any other buildings. It is group of diplomats/official representatives with or without actual physical building. Split is not always because of size. Municipal corporation of city will have mention of mayor and list of mayor will be separate list (as long as all wiki policies are followed). India-x relations will have mention of embassy however list of ambassadors, notable events/activities hosted by embassy can be on separate page. Here is one example -

United Kingdom–United States relations
Embassy of the United States, London
List of ambassadors of the United States to the United Kingdom
Winfield House - the official residence of the United States Ambassador to the United Kingdom.

WP:WHATABOUT is not an excuse, I am sharing it as a possibility in which these embassy articles generally go. Anything without notability must be deleted from Wikipedia however stub articles which have basic notability take time to develop and time should be given to stub articles to develop over a period of time. As long as basic notability criteria is satisfied, article can exist and other people will develop it over a period of time.--AbhiSuryawanshi (talk) 04:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: or may be it can be merged with either with Bulgaria–India relations or List of diplomatic missions of India. Utkarsh555 (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

you have already !voted previously. LibStar (talk) 22:52, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Embassies are not inherently notable and this article and debate contains no suggestion that there is anything which would make this one an exception. Stifle (talk) 12:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of diplomatic missions of India which in fact an editor did to Embassy of India, Bogotá before I reverted a short while ago as being inappropriate while the AFD is pending. I agree with the delete !votes that the are no reliable sources speaking about these specific embassies. They exist, they carry out the business of their government, but these locations, like many others, have not garnered particular notice. Link them in the list article, and if reliable sources take specific note of these locations they can be broken back out. The keep voters, despite asserting notability, have not actually pointed to sourcing establishing it. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 00:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on redirecting EVERY Indian embassy to the list. Utkarsh555 (talk) 03:22, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comoros–Spain relations

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

Fails WP:GNG. There is very little to these relations: no embassies, agreements, significant trade, migration, state visits. The article is largely based on the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. LibStar (talk) 01:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are no relations to speak of between these two countries, which the article more or less admits anyway Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable, independent sources establishing that the topic of these countries' relations are notable. Yilloslime (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep due to improvement during the nomination period. Stifle (talk) 12:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Antoine Bara Blaisot

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

The only sources are results of database queries to worldcat. WP:BEFORE yields nothing. Tried JSTOR, Omni, Grove, Benezit, etc. Found nothing except images of his prints. Vexations (talk) 12:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 12:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:55, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:56, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:56, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete~~ The article needs some independent and reliable sources. It can't rely entirely on collections. Willing to change my !vote if reliable sources are found. Curiocurio (talk) 16:05, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changing !vote to Keep after the improvements made by Possibly. Good work! Curiocurio (talk) 13:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found this engraving in the Rijksmusum collection, which portends well for NARTIST. Brown University also lists him as the publisher of multiple engravings in their collection. --- Possibly ☎ 18:55, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete. I too could find nothing beyond catalogue entries. Seems to constructed from those with additional personal opinions ("particular talent", "reputed ... highest quality", "landmark acheivenent") and editorialising unsupported by sources, and giving undue weight to the contribution of a publisher over e.g. the artist(s).--2A00:23C8:4583:9F01:C76:604D:346A:60AF (talk) 03:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IP, impressive first edit! --- Possibly ☎ 05:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not my first edit. The lower /64 of my IP seems to change every day, if not more often. The upper /64 is stable and you can check my contributions from it.--2A00:23C8:4583:9F01:C76:604D:346A:60AF (talk) 06:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note his alternate name, Antoine Barru Blaisot . I have found many museums that carry the lithographs released by his gallery under the Galeries Universels label. He is frequently listed as co-author. Just found the book Engravers of the 19th Century, which has a paragraph on him: "Antoine -Bara Blaisot, fils d'Antoine, né en 1794 . mort en 1876 , est l'éditeur et marchand d'estampes universellement connu. Rappelons seulement que c'est lui qui commença à publier, il y a plus de soixante ans, les premières litho- graphies d'un jeune homme qui s'appelait Che- valier et qui depuis fut Gavarni. C'est encore lui qui a édité la belle publication des Emaux de Petitoi. 11 a gravé des Modèles de broderies." He existed, he did things that ended up in museums... he's very clearly notable. --- Possibly ☎ 05:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Curiocurio and Vexations:, I have rewritten the article and ditched all the Worldcat refs. Could you have a look at this and see if it passes WP:HEY? I added numerous collections. Let's bear in mind also that he was working around 200 years ago, so there is likely not going to be a lot of in-depth coverage available. --- Possibly ☎ 05:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. I'm inclined to think that the fact that we have any information at all about people who lived a (very) long time ago supports their notability. So even if he was a "Marchand d'estampes", rather than an artist, that doesn't really matter, as long as we have sources that can sustain an article. I'd withdraw the nomination, but I can't because there is no unanimity. Vexations (talk) 10:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That quote should more properly be (minor tweaks but makes it easier to read):

Antoine-Bara Blaisot, fils d'Antoine, né en 1794. mort en 1876, est l'éditeur et marchand d'estampes universellement connu. Rappelons seulement que c'est lui qui commença à publier, il y a plus de soixante ans, les premières lithographies d'un jeune homme qui s'appelait Chevalier et qui depuis fut Gavarni. C'est encore lui qui a édité la belle publication des Emaux de Petitoi. Il a gravé des Modèles de broderies.

But that, a paragraph in a directory, is nowhere near enough for notability, and the other refs contribute nothing. His name of course comes up in catalogs of printed works, he was a publisher responsible for printing them and put his name on them. He was doing that for 60 years so despite inevitable losses there's still a few things around with his name on. But he was the publisher, not the artist. If works with his name on are on show in museums it's because of the art, so the artist.--2A00:23C8:4583:9F01:C76:604D:346A:60AF (talk) 06:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

His name of course comes up in catalogs of printed works, IP, note that I did not add any sources for catalogs, and there are none in the article. The majority of sources I added were for six notable museums that include work he published, and they all mention him by name; some credit him as author. --- Possibly ☎ 16:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Catalogues as in the catalogues museums keep of the works that are entrusted to them. It's something they've always done, as generally their collections are far larger than what they can display. But it's more important now than ever as with the Internet they can open these catalogues up to the world, not just researchers able to visit the museum's archives.

The point is that appearing in such catalogs does not make the works or the creators of those works notable. It simply means the works exist, and someone at some time gave them to the museum: perhaps they were used to pay tax, especially estate tax. As museums conventionally catalogue everything they have it does not indicate anything about notability, just as appearing in any other catalogue doesn't.--2A00:23C8:4583:9F01:F5D0:AED0:DABC:AB5F (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This argument is something that really ought to be addressed in a revised notability guide for the notability of artists. I don't know if anyone here has ever tried to gift something to a museum, but I have, and the process is anything but simple and involves a rigorous asessment of the work, how it would fit in the collection etc. It is actually quite expensive to store artwork in a museum indefinitely, so you can't just bring your old junk and get a tax receipt. I'd argue that inclusion in a museum collection means that a qualified expert (usually a curator with a PhD) provided critical commentary on the work. That's better than what we'd get from a newspaper. Vexations (talk) 00:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This probably varies a lot both by location and over time. But in the UK inheritance have been quite high, with the [desired] effect over time of reducing the wealth of rich families. And historically much of that wealth was tied up in property, not cash. Rather than be forced to sell assets they might instead gift them to the state, in lieu of tax. Probably it happens less now as wealth is more often tied up in financial assets, but it still goes on, so much so the Arts Council runs a scheme to manage it, Acceptance in Lieu. It's how many important individual works end up in museums and their archives, but also collections including of prints, such as the 8th item in the latest set of aquisitions. --2A00:23C8:4583:9F01:F5D0:AED0:DABC:AB5F (talk) 02:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Provided new section with supporting references which begins to associate the works of rival Parisian print publishers of the times. Expect much more information will become appended to it in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sc7n2T4v6 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can see no evidence that sources in any way meet WP:SIGCOV, a listing as creator in catalogues of works is not enough for notability. I can't see anything provided which discusses him specifically. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:08, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 01:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the page has been improved enough during this discussion that the nominator says above that: "I'd withdraw the nomination, but I can't because there is no unanimity." Seems a good initial nomination and then a good save. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (+) 04:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Hagen (anthropologist)

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

Little on this page indicates that the subject is notable. RobP (talk) 01:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 12 papers on GS with over 100 cites. Good enough for WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:01, 2 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Weak Keep his MA profile shows a large number of papers with over 100 citations, which is presumably highly relevant in his field. --hroest 15:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For the amount of content, there is a lot of sources. However, I am abstaining from keeping or deleting until I look at the sources. SoyokoAnis - talk 19:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Lots of reliable sources on this person could use some expansion however. SoyokoAnis - talk 20:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "India on a diplomatic spree! To expand its footprints in South America with opening of new missions in 2021". The Financial Express. 2020-12-31. Retrieved 2021-10-10.

[2] Delhi, Suhasini Haidarnew (2020-12-30). "India to open missions in Estonia, Paraguay and the Dominican Republic". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 2021-10-10.

[3] Service, Tribune News. "India to open three new embassies". Tribuneindia News Service. Retrieved 2021-10-19.

[4] "India on a diplomatic spree! To expand its footprints in South America with opening of new missions in 2021". The Financial Express. 2020-12-31. Retrieved 2021-10-10.

[5] Delhi, Suhasini Haidarnew (2020-12-30). "India to open missions in Estonia, Paraguay and the Dominican Republic". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 2021-10-10.

[6] Service, Tribune News. "India to open three new embassies". Tribuneindia News Service. Retrieved 2021-10-19.

[7] "Dinesh Bhatia concurrently accredited as the next Ambassador of India to the Republic of Paraguay". mea.gov.in. Retrieved 2021-10-19.

[8] Gossage, C.D. (1960). "Insurance medicine" (PDF). Canadian Medical Association Journal. 82 (18): 931.

[9] Janet I. Beik (2012). Health Insurance Today: A Practical Approach. Elsevier. pp. 225–230. ISBN 9781455708192.

[10] Stephens JE. (1978). "Attending physician's (wage-loss) statement forms". Canadian Medical Association Journal. 119 (12).

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[3]

@@ Line 37: / Line 37: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Everett Nourse}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of the United Kingdom, Tashkent}}<!--Relisted-->
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bridge India}}
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bridge India}} -->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holy Trinity Cathedral Senior High School}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karen Conti}}