Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 June 21: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 07:02, 21 June 2022

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< June 20	June 22 >

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 speedy delete. CSD G7 by page creator. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Teresa of Jesus, Child

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

The only source cited for this article is a website in Italian that claims the Mercedarian Order observes the apparent subject’s feast day on 23 November, but a quick search for "23 November Catholic saints" shows that she is not on the saints’ calendar.

Furthermore, a Google search for a "St Teresa of Jesus" comes up with Teresa of Ávila, who was canonized in 1622 and exalted to patroness of Spain by the Cortes Generales in 1627 – exactly the same years claimed for the birth and death of this alleged saint "Teresa of Jesus, Child."

All of this points towards being a likely hoax, and a very long-lasting one at that (over 11 years). 00sClassicGamerFan (talk) 07:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Christianity. 00sClassicGamerFan (talk) 07:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, indeed a blatant hoax, created to cause confusion. Note that e.g. Sanlúcar de Barrameda, the supposed death place of this child, has a relic of the real Saint Teresa. Fram (talk) 07:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. And then you have Theresa of Lisieux Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:25, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Probably qualifies for immediate deletion via WP:SNOW. I had forgotten I created this. It was at a time when I was trying to write articles about saints or venerables who were children and this website said she was five. There are a lot of saints named Theresa, not all of them venerated in every country or included on every calendar of saints after Vatican II, if I remember my thought process at the time. I had written several others that were all in a category called Child Saints. Looking at this one again, I agree that it is completely problematic and should be deleted, probably immediately. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:21, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am tagging for speedy deletion via G7. As you appear to be the only person who has added substantial content to the page, it appears to be eligible for {{db-authorreq}}. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:30, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Agree to speedy delete. Get it gone as soon as possible. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 14:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Endorse immediate action. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:16, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think this should go to the hoax museum instead. 00sClassicGamerFan (talk) 16:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Send to the hoax museum. It’s important that we document this just like the other 10+ year old hoaxes (e.g. William Henry Farrow). 00sClassicGamerFan (talk) 17:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Phasing and Recoverability

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

No reliable secondary independent articles about the book. The two reviews in the article are on user-generated sites so do not meet the reliability standard. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although published in Linguist list, this review by Kimary Shahin (Birzeit University/University of British Columbia) and this review by Stefan Frisch (University of Michigan) are both reliable (edited by Andrew Carnie). The book has 285 citations on Google Scholar. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 01:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:UGC for a discussion of user-generated sites. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

rsjaffe As I said the reviews are different as the reliability of the text and the author and the editor is evident. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 01:26, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's the crux of the matter. I'd like to see others weigh in on this. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:EXPERTSPS, self-published sources like the two Linguist List reviews may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. That criterion is clearly met here: see work by Kimary Shahin and Stefan A Frisch respectively. (It doesn't make a difference, but I can't work out quite whether the reviews actually are WP:SPSes at all: if our article on the subject is right that anyone and everyone can submit posts to the list, why do both sources have the header naming an "Editor for this issue"?) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:45, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:40, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per above, the two reviews are from subject-matter experts, and are therefore reliable despite being self-published. Additionally, both authors are used in multiple other phonetics related Wikipedia articles as sources. ––FormalDude talk 08:05, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 07:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New R. S. J. Public School

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

WP:BEFORE mainly returns listings and wikipedia-clones. But I am aware of sources in Hindi that I can not read or find. Seems to fail WP:GNG The Banner talk 09:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and India. Shellwood (talk) 09:54, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There's a previous AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New R. S. J. Public School Senior Secondary. No idea how to indicate that above; will somebody who knows how please do so? Yngvadottir (talk) 07:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Using the search string न्यू आरएसजे, I found a couple of later news mentions, and one extended article on a graduate that I couldn't use. As was stated at the previous AfD, we need to be very cautious in applying high expectations of archived online coverage to schools in developing countries, which is a form of entrenched bias. This relatively young school (established in 2001) demonstrates continuing press coverage, albeit sparse. Despite the removal since the first AfD of the SCHOOLOUTCOMES guideline under which secondary institutions enjoyed a presumption of notability, given its location in India (in a major city with many private schools jockeying for coverage), I believe it passes GNG. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:13, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - at least it makes assertions that it is notable, and has a citation for a newspaper of record, thus passing most of my standards for school. Bearian (talk) 22:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:34, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Amuse Inc.. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:18, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A-Sketch

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

Fails WP:GNG - Japanese artist management agency with no significant coverage and no notability in evidence either as a business or as a record label in its own right. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Business, and Japan. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has several citations, and my Japanese is not sufficient to evaluate them, but it suggests a prima facie possibility of a GNG pass here (even accounting for the fact that one or two of them look like PR sources). It certainly suggests the nominator's judgment cannot be taken without scrutiny, as no mention is made of the sources in the article or any WP:BEFORE. At worst, we'd want a merge to Amuse Group, anyway, and I fail to see why people keep dragging these things to AfD when we have other venues to deal with them; a redlink here is certainly the worst of all possible solutions. Chubbles (talk) 04:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: Lots of ghits, decades of existence. Is there a Japanese Wikipedia article? SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:22, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Arguments focusing on the quality of available reference material would be very helpful in determination of the outcome. "Ghits" and "decades of existence" would not.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:32, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having translated the sources, en and ja and zh Wikipedias, non of them contain secondary source information. It’s just lots of mentions of this record label sponsoring things. The ja and zh articles are worse. Fails WP:CORP. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:16, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Amuse Inc., where it is listed as a subsidiary. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jungle Ventures

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Run-of-the-mill VC company that invests in non-notable startups (investee companies with bluelinks in the "Notable investments" section are also of dubious notability). This article relies on routine announcements of fundraising and investments. Refbombed, fails WP:NCORP. M4DU7 (talk) 10:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Singapore. M4DU7 (talk) 10:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the WP:GNG is evident, and the subject is well sourced with enough coverage. At least several investments and exits the company made have their own wikipedia pages, that shows the VC is not dealing with small or rubbish startups. --42.60.202.20 (talk) 11:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

— 42.60.202.20 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete Agree with nom, all sources are funding announcements, and the "notable investments" is pure advertorial stuff. Nothing notable. Oaktree b (talk) 02:05, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

also appears to be a SPA with only one edit. Oaktree b (talk) 02:06, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with the nominator and I think that this company has appeared on wikipedia perhaps too soon, or at least it is not right there. There are many notable coverage and mentions, and the VC looks good Singapore and South East Asis, however it's even not close to the legendary Sequoia Capital - an American venture capital firm that had funded Facebook, Apple, Cisco, Google, Nvidia, YouTube and even WhatsApp and European neobank Klarna. It's similar to Azure Capital Partners, however Azuere is American VC and has better portfolio with larger companies onboard. --2600:1702:3790:22F0:C4C8:C1C1:8696:9FF4 (talk) 20:57, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
sorry for my monologue 2600:1702:3790:22F0:C4C8:C1C1:8696:9FF4 (talk) 20:58, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has enough reliable sources to count as notable --Bigneeerman (talk) 21:56, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This account was created on 31 January 2022 and has zero edits between 31 January 2022 and 12 June 2022. M4DU7 (talk) 21:14, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple references are there to support key investments, figures and exits. I found it a good practice in many other venture firms article on wikipedia and used it on purpose, not to make the article spammy/refbombed. I don't know what's better—a stub version or a long version of the article, as both are not perfect. The firm itself is the biggest in the region with a stable long-lasting (10 years) media coverage in local and international news outlets. --Tristana Wors (talk) 08:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Tristana Wors (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since this is a company, WP:NCORP guidelines apply and not just GNG. The references in the article don't appear to include any in-depth "Independent Content" from a party unaffiliated with the topic company. It is a big company and perhaps there are references in other languages that my searching skills fall short on. Unless we can identify the references, the topic company fails WP:NCORP criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mild keep the page has not a perfect style and sourcing, however it has numerous Techchunch reliable sources and not routine coverage (bigger than just passing mentions) and enough Chinese language news articles are also on the web. --Morpho achilles (talk) 08:20, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you post links to the Chinese language news articles which satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND? Can you present the WP:THREE best sources (in any language) to establish notability? M4DU7 (talk) 21:14, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since this is a company, NCORP criteria applies. There's reference above to "multiple references" and mention of Techcrunch references but nothing that isn't a regurgitation of company announcements. I've spent some time searching for references in Chinese on various search engines but I'll readily admit that my searching in this regard is not reliable but I could find nothing that approaches NCORP criteria. Perhaps somebody will post references but until then, topic fails NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:26, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NCORP.4meter4 (talk) 02:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Many arguments here get off the track of examining whether the available sources do or do not establish notability. A specific focus on the quality of available references would be very helpful in evaluating the outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:23, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Did a review suggested by @Seraphimblade::

1. Techcrunch (2021) https://techcrunch.com/2021/09/12/southeast-asia-focused-jungle-ventures-announces-225m-first-close-for-its-fourth-fund/

The article notes: "Southeast Asia’s funding boom is set to continue, with Jungle Ventures announcing today the $225 million first close of its fourth fund. Fund IV started raising in mid-May and is targeting a total of $350 million. The majority of its limited partners are returning from previous funds, and include Temasek Holdings, IFC (which put $25 million in Fund IV), DEG and Asian and global family offices. The firm says this makes Fund IV the largest fund across all early-stage funds in Southeast Asia this year. Founded in 2012, Jungle Ventures launched with a $10 million debut fund. Then in 2016, it announced a $100 million second fund, followed in 2019 by its $240 million third fund. Fund IV fits in with Jungle Ventures’ pace of raising a new fund every 2.5 to 3 years, founding partner Amit Anand told TechCrunch. Jungle Ventures takes a concentrated approach and tends to invest in about 12 to 13 companies per fund. It’s relatively stage agnostic, writing seed to Series B checks and builds long-term partnerships with many of its investments. The firm has invested in every round of several companies, including buy now, pay later startup Kredivo. Jungle Ventures’ limited partners also do a significant amount of co-investments; in the last three to four years, LPs have invested close to $400 million in its portfolio startups. Jungle Ventures’ social commerce investments include Evermos, which sells halal and Sharia-compliant goods through agents to their communities. The firm focuses primarily on Southeast Asia, but it also makes investments in India.:

2. The Wall Street Journal (2015) https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/DJFVW00120150813eb8dqk2e0:

The article notes:Jungle Ventures, a Singapore-based venture firm that invests in a range of software startups based in Asia, has begun raising its second formal fund, a $100 million investing vehicle, a regulatory filing said. The firm has yet to raise capital for the new fund, which is called Jungle Ventures II LP, the filing said. The firm announced in July that it had brought aboard David Gowdey, formerly a partner with TPG Growth, to be to be Jungle Ventures' newest managing partner as the firm begins fundraising efforts. The firm now has four managing partners, the announcement said, including co-founders Anurag Srivastava and Amit Anand, as well as former Sony Corp. executive Jayesh Parekh. Jungle Ventures is an early-stage investor in digital-media, software-as-a-service, e-commerce, analytics and payments startups, information from the firm said. Roughly three quarters of the firm's investments are seed rounds, with the remainder being venture-stage rounds. The firm has so far seen several exits, including one in July from travel-technology company Voyagin Pte. Ltd., which was acquired by Japanese Internet-services company Rakuten Inc. Jungle Ventures was also an investor in Bangalore, India-based ZipDial, which was acquired by Twitter Inc. at the beginning of this year for an undisclosed sum. The firm's current portfolio includes Singapore-based digital-media company One Animation, software-as-a-service provider Mobikon Asia Pte. Ltd., e-commerce company Pomelo and more than 20 other Asia-based software companies, the firm's website said.:

3. Techcrunch (2016) https://techcrunch.com/2016/05/31/seedplus-is-an-early-stage-fund-focused-on-finding-global-startups-in-southeast-asia/

The article notes: Jungle Ventures started out as an angel investment firm in 2012, but it moved into Series A and Series B financing with its new fund last year. SeedPlus, as the newest fund is called, takes it back to its early-stage roots with a hands-on approach to working with its portfolio. SeedPlus will be run by three new recruits that we recently reported to have joined Jungle Ventures: Michael Smith, who was CTO at streaming service HOOQ, ex-Spotify product manager Gabriel Lundberg, and Tiang Lim Foo, formerly of Evernote. Together the trio — who are listed as ‘operating partners’ at Jungle — will invest in companies in Southeast Asia and work closely with them to scale their business. Jungle Ventures is arguably one of the stand-out investors in Southeast Asia, but SeedPlus is an interesting challenge since — to date, at least — there are few examples of companies with global reach emerging from Southeast Asia. The startups that have scaled the most in the region have provided services very specific to Southeast Asia — Grab is an Uber rival, Lazada is an Amazon equivalent, to name but two — but Jungle is investing significant funds, resources and attention to SeedPlus, which suggests that the team sees the potential for Southeast Asian startups to break that mold and be relevant globally. That makes this is a project worth watching.:

4. Techcrunch (2022) https://techcrunch.com/2022/05/17/jungle-ventures-closes-a-600m-fund-bringing-its-total-assets-under-management-to-over-1b/

The article notes: Singapore-based venture firm Jungle Ventures is digging deeper into Southeast Asia and India with the close of its fourth fund. Fund IV totals $600 million, with $450 million for new investments and $150 million earmarked for follow-up investments in its portfolio companies. The fund’s close brings Jungle Ventures’ total assets under management to over $1 billion, which it says makes it the first independent, Singapore-headquartered venture firm that invests across Southeast Asia and India to hit this milestone. Fund IV’s limited partners are split equally between returning investors and new ones. Returning backers include Temasek, IFC, FMO and DEG, while new LPs include StepStone Group. TechCrunch covered the fund’s first close of $225 million in September 2021. Jungle Ventures was founded in 2012 by Amit Anand and Anurag Srivastava, launching with a $10 million debut fund. Jungle Ventures has about 60 portfolio companies and says its enterprise value is over $12 billion on $250 million of invested capital, with a loss ratio of less than 5%. Some of Jungle Ventures’ most notable investments include unicorns Kredivo, Livspace and Moglix. It looks for companies that can expand between Southeast Asia and India; for example, Livspace was founded in India and now operates in Southeast Asia, too. Fund IV will continue Jungle Ventures’ “concentrated portfolio” approach, making a projected 15 to 18 key investments out of India and Southeast Asia. It makes many follow-up investments and has invested about $30 million to $40 million in some companies, across multiple rounds.:

5. The Next Web https://thenextweb.com/news/jungle-ventures-10-million-super-angel-fund:

The article notes: There’s good new for young startups across Asia after Singapore-based investment firm Jungle Ventures announced the launch of its new ‘super angel’ fund, which it confirms has raised an initial US$10 million to be invested in early-stage businesses across Asia. The firm already has investments in a number of promising pan-Asia startups and Amit Anand, Jungle Ventures founder and managing partner, says that the new fund will target seed-to-series-A funding opportunities, with investments typically ranging from US$100,000 to US$1 million. The company recently put US$1 million into travel startup TravelMob and partook in a US$1.3 million round for DocDoc, and these deals are exactly the type that will be pursued over the next eight years or so. Then there is the role of the Singaporean government, which recently added Jungle Ventures to the Singapore National Research Foundation (NRF), Technology Incubation Scheme (TIS). That, Anand explains, means that the government will augment Jungle Venture’s investments, with each US$1 of funding being matched by up to US$5 from the government. The funding scheme is designed to “jump start” deals, the Jungle Ventures founder says, and investors are given the option to purchase the government’s share in startups over time. Some pundits have speculated that this leaves startups unhealthy focused on raising funding rather than other business-related targets, but there is no doubt that it can help encourage startups and aspiring entrepreneurs in the region where investor support lags the US. While Jungle Ventures is based in Singapore, it is casting its eye across Asia for startups that have pan-continental potential. The firm already has strong links in India, but Thailand, Indonesia, Taiwan and other markets are very much in focus. Jungle Ventures works with a number of other top VCs, including Dave McClure’s 500 Startups, which was a co-investor in DocDoc.:

6. Techcrunch (2016) https://techcrunch.com/2016/11/30/jungle-ventures-100-million-fund-southeast-asia/:

The article notes: Singapore’s Jungle Ventures today confirmed the final close of its newest $100 million fund for investments in Southeast Asia. The firm announced plans for the fund, which is its second, in September 2015 when it completed a first close. It represents a big step up from the first debut $10 million, and with an increase in capital so Jungle Ventures is shifting its initial focus on seed-stage deals to Series A and Series B investments. The company is still very much involved in early stage startup work, but that is being handled by SeedPlus, a new fund it established in May of this year. Jungle Ventures began spending the capital last year, and the plan is very much the same now that the full allocation is closed. Beyond its focus on companies in Southeast Asia, Jungle Ventures plans to continue to look at opportunities in India and, in addition, other parts of Asia Pacific where it can help startups expand into Southeast Asia.:

7. Reuters (2019) https://www.reuters.com/article/us-jungle-ventures-fundraising-idINKBN1X82K6 :

The article notes: Singapore’s Jungle Ventures said on Wednesday it has raised $240 million from investors, including Temasek Holdings, for a third fund designed to back Southeast Asian startups, highlighting the growing interest in the region’s technology firms. Jungle Ventures’ latest fund comes as a growing number of venture capital firms, including Vertex Ventures and Golden Gate Ventures, have been raising funds focused on the region this year. The fund exceeded Jungle Ventures’ initial target range of $150 million to $200 million, Anand said. In its previous fund, the company raised $100 million from investors in 2016 and its debut fund had raised $10 million in 2012. Jungle Ventures’ portfolio includes Singaporean hotel booking and management platform RedDoorz, cloud-based software provider Deskera, research platform Smartkarma and Thai fashion e-commerce start-up Pomelo Fashion. The firm has created an internal rate of return of about 79% with its four exits that included vacations rental platform Travelmob, Anand said. It typically allocates $10 million-$20 million per company, making 10 to 15 key investments in each fund.:

8. Business Standard (2019) https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/venture-capital-firm-jungle-ventures-raises-240-million-for-third-fund-119103000052_1.html :

The article notes: Jungle is scouting for companies in India which have an opportunity to scale their business into Southeast Asia and globally. Jungle Ventures, one of Southeast Asia’s largest early-stage venture capital firms, closed its third fund, Jungle Ventures III by raising a total of $240 million. It includes $40 million raised in separately managed account commitments, for investments in innovative technology and digital-driven consumer businesses across Southeast Asia. Jungle mainly invests in three verticals which include consumer brands for the digitally native, digital platforms for transforming small and medium enterprises and global technology companies born in Asia. Some of Jungle's notable investments in India include Livspace, Moglix, PaySense, Engineer.Ai, Tookitaki and Klinify. Jungle raised more than double the amount of its previous fund, Jungle Ventures II (2016), with nearly 60 per cent of committed capital coming from outside Asia. More than 90 per cent of the capital came from institutional investors spanning North America, Europe, the Middle East and Asia, with new investors accounting for nearly 70 per cent of the fundraise and returning investors for the rest. ungle Ventures was the earliest institutional investor in a number of category leaders in Southeast Asia. These include travel and hospitality startup RedDoorz, fashion e-tailer Pomelo Fashion, online consumer lending and payments platform Kredivo and software firm Deskera. In the past, Jungle has got at least six exits from its portfolio firms including mobile marketing company Zipdial which was acquired by Twitter and travel company Voyagin which was bought by e-commerce firm Rakuten.:

9. Bloomberg News (2021) https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-09-13/jungle-ventures-raises-225-million-at-first-close-of-new-fund :

The article notes: Jungle Ventures raised $225 million in the first close of its fourth fund as the venture capital firm seeks to replicate its successes in startups across Southeast Asia and India. Many of its existing investors in previous funds backed the latest one, founding partner Amit Anand said in an interview. They include Temasek Holdings Pte, International Finance Corp. and German development finance institution DEG. The new fund has a planned size of $350 million. There has been a flurry of fundraising activities and initial public offerings in Southeast Asia and India, where the tech industry is having a boom year. Since launching its first early-stage fund in 2012, Jungle Ventures has become one of the fastest-growing local VC firms in the city-state with assets under management of about $600 million. “We have coined two unicorns this year where we have been seed-to-IPO investors,” Anand said. “We have built a franchise that will repeat quarter after quarter, and that separates us from the one-hit wonder venture-capital providers.” Singapore-based Jungle Ventures has been an early and consistent backer of Kredivo, which went on to become Indonesia’s largest consumer lending app, as well as business-to-business e-commerce platform Moglix. Kredivo’s parent, FinAccel, in August agreed to go public in the U.S. through a merger with a blank-check firm that values the combined entity at $2.5 billion. Other noteworthy Jungle Ventures investments include home-interior platform Livspace, beauty e-commerce operator Sociolla and Pomelo, a women’s fashion retailer in Southeast Asia.:

10. Inc42 (2022) https://inc42.com/buzz/jungle-ventures-announces-closure-600-mn-fund-iv-india-sea/ :

The article notes: Singapore-based venture capital (VC) firm Jungle Ventures has announced the closure of its Fund IV at $600 Mn. The fund will consist of $450 Mn in the main fund and $150 Mn in additional managed commitments. With this fund, Jungle Ventures will have total assets under management (AUM) at $1 Bn and the VC firm said that it was the first independent Singapore-based VC firm to reach this milestone. Incidentally, Fund IV was originally targeted at $350 Mn, with participation from existing investors such as Temasek, IFC, FMO, and DEG. Along with these, new investors such as Mizuho Bank Ltd. and StepStone Group also committed to the fund. Founded in 2012 by Amit Anand and Anurag Srivastava, Jungle Ventures was launched with a $10 Mn debut fund. The VC firm has a portfolio of companies with an enterprise value of over $12 Bn, investing around $250 Mn. Some of the startups that form part of Jungle’s portfolio include Livspace and Moglix, the two Indian unicorns. Jungle Ventures had been an early-stage investor in both of them. Apart from the two unicorns, Jungle Ventures also has recently backed the likes of HRTech startup inFeedo and blue-collar workforce management platform Betterplace, the latter of which was exclusively reported by Inc42. Other investments made by Jungle include the likes of edtech startup Leap and insurtech startup Turtlemint, among others. The VC firm has said that it will make around 15-18 investments across startups based in India and Southeast Asia from Fund IV. Jungle Ventures already has made commitments from the new fund, including Vietnam-based digital banking startup Timo and Indian D2C consumer electronics startup Atomberg. The aforementioned inFeedo was also an investment made from the new fund. The first close of Fund IV came in September 2021, when Jungle Ventures raised $225 Mn from existing investors, including Temasek Holdings Pte, International Finance Corporation and German development finance institution DEG.:

11. The Economic Times (2021) https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/startups/jungle-ventures-raises-225-million-to-invest-in-india-southeast-asia-startups/articleshow/86163515.cms :

The article notes: Jungle Ventures raised $225 million in the first close of its fourth fund as the venture capital firm seeks to replicate its successes in startups across Southeast Asia and India. Many of its existing investors in previous funds backed the latest one, founding partner Amit Anand said in an interview. They include Temasek Holdings Pte, International Finance Corp. and German development finance institution DEG. The new fund has a planned size of $350 million. There has been a flurry of fundraising activities and initial public offerings in Southeast Asia and India, where the tech industry is having a boom year. Since launching its first early-stage fund in 2012, Jungle Ventures has become one of the fastest-growing local VC firms in the city-state with assets under management of about $600 million. Singapore-based Jungle Ventures has been an early and consistent backer of Kredivo, which went on to become Indonesia’s largest consumer lending app, as well as business-to-business e-commerce platform Moglix. Kredivo’s parent, FinAccel, in August, agreed to go public in the US through a merger with a blank-check firm that values the combined entity at $2.5 billion. Other noteworthy Jungle Ventures investments include home-interior platform Livspace, beauty e-commerce operator Sociolla and Pomelo, a women’s fashion retailer in Southeast Asia.:

12. The Wall Street Journal (2019) https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/jungle-ventures-third-fund-holds-175-million-first-close-11556571660 :

The article notes: Jungle Ventures held a $175 million first close of its third fund and expects the new vehicle to reach a $220 million final close in the coming months, a person familiar with the matter said. The new fund, Jungle Ventures III LP, already has collected more than the Southeast Asian venture investor’s previous vehicles combined. Its second fund, a 2016 vintage-year vehicle, closed at $100 million and its first fund, a 2012-vintage offering, closed at $12 million. The new vehicle initially had a $200 million offering amount, according to a December filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Placement agent Eaton Partners LLC is assisting with the fundraising process, the filing says. The Singapore-based firm targets early-stage investments in three main areas: consumer brands for the younger population of Asia; digital platforms targeting small and medium-size businesses; and global technology companies originating in Asia. Jungle Ventures’ investments include online home-furnishings marketplace LivSpace, apparel e-commerce site Pomelo and cloud-based business-application maker Deskera, according to its website.:

13. Business Standard (2015) https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/jungle-ventures-appoints-david-gowdey-as-managing-partner-115072300382_1.html :

The article notes: Jungle Ventures today announced the appointment of David Gowdey, formerly with TPG Growth, as managing partner. With this appointment, the Singapore-based firm will now have a team of four managing partners led by co-founders, Anurag Srivastava and Amit Anand as well as Jayesh Parekh, co-founder of Sony Entertainment Television India who joined the firm in 2013. Earlier this month, Jungle appointed Ratan Tata, Chairman Emeritus of Tata Group, as a Special Advisor. Gowdey brings to Jungle Ventures over 16 years of experience in investing and working with internet companies in both mature and emerging markets. He will be based in Singapore, where he will help lead Series A and B stage investments with a focus on the consumer internet sector. Jungle is in the process of closing its second South Asia focused fund. Some of the other advisors with the Jungle Ventures network include Gokul Rajaram, product engineering lead at Square; Lim Dershing, founder of JobsCentral; and Alon Sobol, director of ISP/ telco relationships for Spotify.:

14. Tech in Asia (2022) https://www.techinasia.com/jungle-ventures-fourth-fund :

The article notes: VC firm Jungle Ventures has closed its fourth fund at US$600 million. The investment vehicle includes US$450 million in commitments in the main fund, with the rest coming from additional managed commitments. This pushes the firm’s assets under management to over US$1 billion. In a statement, Jungle Ventures said that it was the first independent Singapore-based VC that targets the Southeast Asian and Indian markets to reach that threshold. The fund itself started with an initial target of US$350 million. Half of the total commitments came from existing investors such as Singaporean investment firm Temasek, the World Bank’s International Finance Corporation, Dutch development bank FMO, and German financial institution DEG. Japan-based Mizuho Bank and US-based StepStone Group also joined the fund as limited partners. The VC firm plans to deploy the fund into 15 to 18 key investments across India and Southeast Asia. Founded by Amit Anand and Anurag Srivastava in 2012, Jungle Ventures launched with a US$10 million maiden fund. David Gowdey then joined as managing partner in 2015. It currently has an enterprise value of more than US$12 billion, and its portfolio includes unicorn companies such as Kredivo, Livspace, and Moglix. Jungle Ventures recently promoted Yash Sankrityayan, Sandeep Uberoi, and Manpreet Ratia as managing partners.:

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Jungle Ventures to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". --ArcticSnowWind (talk) 11:37, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wall of text, much? Fails WP:CORP, no significant coverage outside funding announcements. I'd drag Livspace to AfD as well, the only bluelink 'unicorn' claimed in this article. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:37, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what's wall of text means but I only picked the coverage concerning vc firm from the most reliable and deep media coverage provided in the article. It it significant enough. However, I didn't do it for you or myself, but for the one who will decide. I found @Seraphimblade's comment quite reasonable that no one wants to analyse the quality of sources and coverage. ArcticSnowWind (talk) 11:11, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey ArcticSnowWind that's significant effort, it is appreciated. You say those references pass NCORP's Primary criteria. As per WP:SIRS (past of the Primary criteria) *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant so long as we find a minimum of two. Each reference must include 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. Looking at the references you've selected above, they are all based on company announcements, regulatory filings and other company-created information. This fails the "Independent Content" criteria since there is no analysis/fact checking/opinion/etc that is *clearly attributable* to a source *unaffiliated* to the topic company. For example (I'll just ramdomly pick two of the references above):

this from WSJ is about the topic company's "hunt for $100m South Asia Fund" and also mentions the company's earlier announcement of a new managing partner. So the sources for the article (as confirmed by the content of the article) are 1) regulatory filing 2) an Announcement and 3) information from the firm. I am unable to identify any "Independent Content" so this fails WP:ORGIND - and therefore WP:SIRS and therefore fails the Primary Criteria. The next reference from India Times dated Sept 13 2021 is about the company closing the first round of its fourth fund and raised $225m. The second paragraph mentions an interview with a founding partner. Also worth pointing out that this exact article originated as a Bloomberg article (journalist also accredited as "Bloomberg"). If this was based on an announcement - which is very likely - then I would expect to see the announcement covered by a lot of other publications and all with a high degree of overlap in terms of information. And we can see that sure enough, it was also covered by Business Today (uses identical quotes too)
Business Times (also practically identical) by way of example. Based on the near-identical texts in different publications it obviously originated from the company and those publishers/journalist have not added any additional in-depth "Independent Content" - fails ORGIND also.
Final point. Essentially there are two types of references (all governed by WP:RS) and while just about any reference including PRIMARY sources and interviews, etc, published in WP:RS can be used to support a fact or piece of information within an article, only a smaller subset go on to meet the criteria for establishing notability.

I hope the above helps explain what kind of references are acceptable for the purposes of establishing notability - namely ones where an unconnected party have written in-depth "Independent Content" about the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:51, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. I read numerous AfD's and also the rules and see, that anyone is glad to explain the rules as they want. Concerning WSJ and India Times - I don't think they are the best. Techcrunch has much more deep coverage. But, almost any of the given sources is independent, as the rule states: "A primary test of notability is whether unrelated people with no vested interest in the subject have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it. Self-promotion and product placement are not routes to qualifying for an encyclopedia article." And here the rule says how to decide whether or not the sourse is independent:

Independence of the author (or functional independence): the author must be unrelated to the company, organization, or product. Related persons include organization's personnel, owners, investors, (sub)contractors, vendors, distributors, suppliers, other business partners and associates, customers, competitors, sponsors and sponsor (the media are independent and track the company's history from 2013 to 2022 with steady interest)
Independence of the content (or intellectual independence): the content must not be produced by interested parties
(yes, there are some comments by the CEO, but I didn't pick them, and only added above the original coverage by the journalists with their overview, description, commentary, analysis, and evaluation of the company as needed for a significan coverage) Taking into consideration that criteria, I see that most of the sources I highlighted here are independent, not relied in any way to the firm (are unconnected parties), and they do include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking.
Also here is another point: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Depth of coverage says: Such (deep) coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization. I see the page has received "deep coverage" that is far beyond incomplete stub.

ArcticSnowWind (talk) 13:40, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not ready to discuss here anything more. Please, don't ping me or address me any comments. Bye bye ArcticSnowWind (talk) 13:48, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "yes there are come comments by the CEO, but I didn't pick them" you appear to be assuming that all of the parts of an article that are not quotes must therefore be "Intellectually Independent". That's isn't true. You provided a truncated definition of "Independent of the Content" and the part you left out is the bit which says that "Intellectual Content" must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. It would be helpful if you could explain how "Independent Content" from multiple different publishers all contain the same facts/information/quotations ... the easiest and simplest explanation is that they're based entirely from a company announcement/PR/etc. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me you cherry-pick the most suitable pieces of text which suit your theory and apply them too broadly. Plus, your generalization "Independent Content" from multiple different publishers all contain the same facts/information/quotations" doesn't lave here any room for further discussion. However, I agree, that some pieces of text if copied by other news media may look not truly independent by its nature, but it's still a POV/assumption. ArcticSnowWind (talk) 22:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if that's the way it appears to you but in the absence of any other "theory", what do you think? In many cases when I see this exact same conduct (edit - should read "the exact same material in multiple sources") I can locate a link to the initial company announcement (maybe on PRNews or similar) but I haven't in this case. I'm not trying to cherry pick any text in particular but sometimes it is easier to pick a phrase or a quote and search for it and then look to see what else is identical between different sources. For example, in looking at the "Business Times" article, it contains a quote "We have coined two unicorns this year". Searching for this quote uncovers multiple different RS publishers repeating the same news about the $225m fund all within a day of each other. I believe it is reasonable to discount sources such as these as containing "Independent Content" and I would argue that to assume otherwise is disingenuous. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

you are right, press-releases work in this way. ArcticSnowWind (talk) 14:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How many editors in a given day have to tell you that your unique theory regarding "Independent Content" is incorrect for you to take a hint? Its three in the last one, is that higher or lower than normal? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reliable sources have given them significant coverage. You only have to pass the general notability guidelines or a subject specific guideline, not both. WP:GNG has been met. The company manages over a billion dollars, so business media will cover their activities. Dream Focus 20:22, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't give much weight to AUM based on private, self-assigned startup valuations. A company which was valued at $3 billion about two years ago was recently valued at just $13 million [1]. Just goes to show how absurdly overvalued these startups can be at the peak of the fundraising bubble. We've deleted at least one private company valued at $5 billion this year and that one had far better sources than the ones on this article. I'm not able to find any WP:SIGCOV beyond the routine fundraising announcements for this company. M4DU7 (talk) 16:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The argument "you only have to pass GNG *or* SNG, not both" has been debated many times. The consensus is that for companies/organization, you should generally follow NCORP guidelines. In exceptional circumstances you might default to GNG but I don't see any reason to deviate here. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this consensus you speak of? WP:NOTABILITY is quite clear, an article is notable if it passes the general notability guidelines OR a subject specific guideline. Dream Focus 05:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus The consensus is the NCORP guideline itself which, unlike other SNGs, increases rather than lowers the rigor involved in proving notability beyond GNG. As a community supported policy page, it demonstrates that the community as a whole thinks corporations must be held to a higher standard to prove notability.4meter4 (talk) 15:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add - WP:NOTABILITY has two sections. One is called the "General Notability Guidelines" or WP:GNG for short. The very next section is called "Subject-specific notability guidelines" or WP:SNG for short. In SNG it even specifically refers to the strict significant coverage requirements spelled out in the SNG for organizations and companies. I don't think you can argue that NCORP is not the appropriate guideline for companies and organizations? The line taken by some editors is that there are *two* paths to notability - you can either pass GNG *or* pass the SNG. You're welcome to argue that the topic passes GNG just as others are pointing out that the topic fails NCORP. You appear to miss the point that even GNG requires "Independent" sourcing (and NCORP explains how, in practice, that applies to companies/organizations) and you've yet to link to any sourcing that you claim even meets GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per the detailed source review above by ArcticSnowWind, which highlights significant media coverage including this from Business Standard [[2]] calling the company "one of Southeast Asia’s largest early-stage venture capital firms." The source review shows all independent, reliable sources. Meets WP:NCORP. There should be more efforts to expand our financial business coverage beyond the United States and its Western allies. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Enough coverage from independent reliable sources to meet WP:NCORP criteria. ChristinaNY (talk) 09:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not this again. Seems to be nothing to say about this other than a bunch of financial transactions (see WP:SERIESA). That does not meet WP:NCORP. And one can't use WP:GNG as a backdoor claim that articles documenting routine financial transactions establish notability; they don't. User:ArcticSnowWind's lengthy statement of sources on this article is moot, because aside from heavy reliance on sources like WP:TECHCRUNCH, the articles cited are all routine financial transaction coverage. Why do we have to constantly rehash this? Is there some reason to keep articles that only, and will only ever, list the amount of money raised and subsidiaries? Wikipedia is not a chronology of the doings of market whales. FalconK (talk) 02:04, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above arguments. The listed sources are enough to write an article not only focused on fundraising or product releases. --2A01:C22:7231:3800:DC94:D85A:E399:69DE (talk) 11:46, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The newly minted IP above voted Delete at one other AfD before rolling up here - and for our first two edits, we're right on top of AfD protocol!!! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:59, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as an IP I made several votes on recent AfD debates listed on Wikipedia. I see the IPs often vote and voted here so I don't see any troubles. --95.117.31.251 (talk) 15:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Cancer Conspiracy

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

A year ago, I boldly redirected this to Big Pharma conspiracy theory#Hidden cancer cure, and this redirect was just reverted. I don't see any way that this will meet notability. Three of the sources merely name-drop this band while being about something else, and the fourth source is their own web page. I recommend restoring the redirect Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Vermont. ––FormalDude talk 07:42, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Come on man, did you do any research on this band before nominating it? Not notable? Really? There's no doubt that the article is poorly written, formatted and sourced. It needs a complete rewrite. But I remember this band from when they were active and they were a high-profile act. They had coverage in big magazines and toured with some big bands (I don't mean being a one-off local opening band for a national act; I mean they were out and on the road as part of package tours with bands of notability). Their releases were put out by some big labels too and had a lot of coverage. I just spent a short hour doing very basic online research on the band and came up with a bunch of things validating their notability.

-Point 1: 98 of the 222 results on Archive.org are relevant to this band. Some of the sources that can (and will) be used as citations on the rewrite include WP:RS and notable publications like Ox-Fanzine, Punk Planet, AMP, The Phoenix, HeartattaCk, Seven Days, Maximum Rocknroll, Modern Drummer, Plan B, Plastic Bomb, SLUG Magazine, Suburban Voice and The Improper Bostonian.

-Point 2: there are 172 results published in CMJ relevant to the band. Granted, most of them are trivial radio airplay mentions, but 19 of them are very good and usable, like album reviews, chart ratings and announcements of album release and show dates. It's very hard to get a review in CMJ. This alone shows that the band was notable enough at the time to be on Wikipedia.

Link1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

-Point 3: In addition to the above, other online publications include AllMusic (Link, which has a detailed band page with a biography and a professional review of one of their releases so it can be used as a valid source since its not user-generated content), Barre Montpelier Times Argus (Link), The Austin Chronicle (Link), BrooklynVegan (Link), Metal.de (Link), Pollstar (Link), Ondarock (Link), Rock Hard (Link), Alarm (Link), Scene Point Blank (Link), Lambgoat (Link) and Visions (Link).

-Point 4: 265 of the 304 results on Newspapers.com searching for "cancer conspiracy" between 1999 and 2008 are relevant to this band. Again, most are trivial listings for concerts, but there are 13 that are clear WP:SIGCOV. You can take your pick of the 9 full-page or half-page write-ups in the The Burlington Free Press (Link1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9). There's also a feature article in the Arizona Daily Star (Link), and album reviews in the Daily Hampshire Gazette (Link), The Sun News (Link) and The Tampa Tribune (Link).

-As mentioned above, these are just things I found in a quick hour of research. I could find a ton more if I start looking back on the Wayback Machine at old WP:RS webzines and music publications of the era.--Bricks&Wood talk 09:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Bricks&Wood. ––FormalDude talk 13:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources enumerated in point 3 of Bricks & Wood's comment, although I take exception to their indignation expressed towards the nominator and their insistence that editors spend up to an hour performing a WP:BEFORE. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for coming off as indignant. I was just surprised, but I'm not angry and have no resentment. I also apologize for any implications at editors' duties, that certainly was not my intention. I mean no offence to anyone.--Bricks&Wood talk 18:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was told something similar in another AfD; I'm not here to argue with you as to why your sources are good and I've suggested others, but I'm not doing a line-by-line analysis of the sources; this frankly isn't that important to me. I'll withdraw my vote completely. No skin off my back if this gets kept or deleted. I've thrown in my two cents, but I'm not going to die on this hill. Oaktree b (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak Keep Some of the sources appear to hold up the point, but I'm not here to re-invent the wheel/validate them in depth. Article seems fringe-based to my plebe eyes, I'm of no fixed opinion otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are substantial content issues with the page, but I don't think they're insurmountable and WP:DEL-CONTENT commands that we not delete articles when ordinary editing can fix issues within them. The sources identified by Bricks&Wood show that the band is notable and are more than enough to improve the page. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 03:47, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jedidiah McCloud

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

Fails WP:GNG; lack of WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources . JTtheOG (talk) 05:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and United States of America. JTtheOG (talk) 05:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:43, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article does not have sufficient sourcing of the type to meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify All recently created articles with insufficient referencing as their only issue should be draftified, not deleted. That is what the draftspace is for. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I cannot find significant coverage of this individual by multiple independent RS, so this individual fails WP:NBASIC and WP:GNG. I have no objection to redirecting his page to the roster section of Chicago Fire FC II, but I have some questions about whether or not that specific sporting team is notable. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 16:53, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider the option of draftifying or redirection
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All articles with insufficient referencing and evidence of potential expansion should be deleted, not draftified. That is not what the draftspace is for. Avilich (talk) 01:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paathshala School

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

Nursery school. Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and India. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. No mention in RS. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:04, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This appears to fail WP:NSCHOOL by virtue of a lack of significant coverage in multiple independent RS. As a nursery school founded in 2012, I would be surprised if there were enough coverage in print-only media to get it over this hurdle, so I am comfortable deleting the article as non-notable. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 16:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttarakhand-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Congrats! This is the first AfD in a new delsort! –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per A7 by Justlettersandnumbers (non-admin closure) Shellwood (talk) 10:28, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Madhu Chaudhary

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

Non-notable -- NotCharizard ^🗨 04:55, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet Friggin' Daisies

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

I found no significant coverage on Google and Newspapers.com. Non-notable film. SL93 (talk) 03:22, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources demonstrating significant coverage. Nothing on Newspapers, Wayback, Google, or other databases. I don't see how the article can or could meet the notability criteria per NFSOURCES at NFILM. Likewise I am not seeing other evidence of notability per NFO. One line, poorly sourced stub with negligible potential for improvement. MaxnaCarta (talk) 03:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, found only directories and Wikipedia mirrors. There is so little out there that I think it might be a WP:HOAX. What say you, @SL93: and @MaxnaCarta:? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...This has left me confused. It is not a hoax, why do you suggest that? There are too many links to different sites be they reviews or blogs, plus screenshots from the film in Google images to be a hoax. Not notable, but not a hoax. MaxnaCarta (talk) 03:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How can we prove that though? There are no recordings of the movie anywhere, which is jaw dropping for something involving as big a name as Zooey Deschanel. Literally 100% of the entries on Google are just mirrors of IMDb and/or Wikipedia. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:54, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not that you would believe me, but I have seen the short film years ago. Plus there are lots of screen captures available online. Definitely not a hoax. DonaldD23 talk to me 10:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems obviously not a hoax.
1. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0330956/
2. https://www.radiotimes.com/movie-guide/b-sgkiuq/sweet-friggin-daisies/
3. Newsmakers: [3 STAR , 0 edition]. (2006, Jan 02). Houston Chronicle Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/newsmakers/docview/396182135/se-2?accountid=196403
4. Ratliff, L. (2003, Apr 25). Generational saga a fine mess: [metro edition]. San Antonio Express-News Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/generational-saga-fine-mess/docview/262249816/se-2?accountid=196403
5. Identity theft charges have model posing for mugshot: Salt lake telegram. (2006, Jan 01). Deseret News Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/identity-theft-charges-have-model-posing-mugshot/docview/351401622/se-2?accountid=196403 CT55555 (talk) 04:37, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is still incredibly sus to me because of how little proof exists beyond the most superficial of mentions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it being a not notable short film seems like a very likely explanation and this being an elaborate hoax seems exceptional unlikely. Occam's razor applies here. CT55555 (talk) 11:38, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. IMDb links to a two sentence long non-English review so I don't see how the film could be a hoax. SL93 (talk) 22:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy. Reading over this, there are plenty of bad arguments. I would like to remind people that WP:TNT does not advance an argument for deletion and WP:MUSTBESOURCES is considered to be a bad argument. Keeping that in mind, the people advocating for merging have the numerical and policy-based edge. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:12, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy characters

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

This has twice been nominated for deletion (with one by yours truly). I read through the past nominations before posting this. I still don't think this is worthy of its own article. Maybe on a fan site, maybe on a blog, but not WP.

The characters listed here do not hold up to the notability guidelines set by WP. A laundry list of supporting or recurring characters on here have no real content in their respective subsections other than in-universe information (i.e. physical descriptions and episode plot mentions). The list is cluttered with speculative summaries and unconventional aliases for the characters (Irwin Dracula? A main character?). There are two references cited, one being a blog and the other a page in a book with a brief mention of the show.

I concede that Billy, Mandy, and Grim are notable and deserve inclusion on WP, but that doesn't justify a separate character list when descriptions in the main series article would suffice. I'm not against including some characters other than the main three in the series article, but this list is overkill.

This list, detailed as it may be, is a heap of fancruft and should be merged with the main series article. If I'm on the Internet looking for this much detail, I'll visit a fan site. — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 02:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT if nothing else. This is a massive blob of fancruft with little to no out-of-universe notability asserted. No sources could possibly exist. Mentioning the main characters in the main article should be enough. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, Comics and animation, and Lists. ––FormalDude talk 07:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup as desired. A list of not individually notable elements is explicitly enumerated under WP:CSC, and fictional characters lists exist for this purpose since the WP:POKEMON wars, regardless of whether the nom is familiar or not. No issue with the list has been identified that can't be addressed by regular editing (i.e., pare down excessive info), and nom grants the notability of the fictional franchise, so that's not even on the table. Jclemens (talk) 23:23, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to your comment, I'd like to reference an older XfD for a similar character list that also happened to be a CN series. Quoting another editor, "Any content of value can be added to the main article". — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 02:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Character lists are sometimes kept and sometimes deleted, based on the random people that show up to comment. Dream Focus 03:17, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus That randomness is unfortunate. Perhaps we need a wide RfC on the Wikipedia:Notability (character lists). The tits for tats at AfD are amusing, but frankly, not very professional. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:07, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A valid spinout list. Just like we have lists of episodes, we also have character lists. If its too long to fit in the main article, you make a side list for it. Dream Focus 03:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC);B[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NLIST. Massively unsourced and effectively a random block/list of unstructured content that doesn't satisfy WP:V. It is effectively fancruft and is better served somehwhere else on the internet. scope_creep^Talk 08:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't fail V unless you've tried to source it and failed. Remember, V can be met by primary sources... they just don't count for notability. Jclemens (talk) 17:07, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge short summary then redirect to The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy. This is mostly unreferenced WP:FANCRUFT. But some list of characters, short, does, arguably, belong in the plot description for each work of fiction. No need to spin it off, WP:NLIST is no met outside other plot summaries (also, see MOS:POPCULTURE). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- MOS means manual of style. It references how things are represented, not what is represented, and is a categorically inappropriate argument in any deletion discussion, because style never determines content. Rather, policies determine content, style guides determine presentation of that content. Jclemens (talk) 17:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per arguments made by @Jclemens: and @Dream Focus:. This was a popular show, so I would be shocked if there weren't at least a few sources discussing some of the show's characters, particularly the lead characters. MoonJet (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy. I don't see anything to justify the massive detailed coverage of any of these characters in the sources, a Tumblr post and one sentence in a book. If anybody can find in depth sources discussing the characters as a group or individually then maybe some it could be kept but when I looked I couldn't find anything. A short list of characters would be suited in the main article. Cakelot1 (talk) 12:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There's no justification for the list of characters being notable on their own, it doesn't meet NLIST, and The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy doesn't have SIZE issues that would require a spinout article, either. Like Cakelot above, I couldn't find anything that specifically and in-depth was covering the characters versus the show as a whole (which is what was brought up at previous AfDs.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is self-published with no encyclopedic analysis, backed up by zero secondary sources and with no historical value. It like a big social media post, self-published and is completely anathema to Wikipedia 5P. scope_creep^Talk 19:33, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Star Mississippi 17:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Gregory Pestana

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

Usher of the Second Magistrate's Court in Singapore is not a position that confers notability. There is press coverage of the subject but this is “local” in the context of the time and it does not amount to a GNG pass. Mccapra (talk) 02:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Singapore. Mccapra (talk) 02:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: According to this, the Malaya Tribune was distributed across Malaya, Siam, Java, Sumatra and Borneo, and the Morning Tribune was also distributed in Johor. According to this, the Saturday Tribune was also published in Ipoh, Penang and Kuala Lumpur. According to this, The Straits Times also had offices in London and Kuala Lumpur. Would the sources from the Morning Tribune, the Malaya Tribune, the Sunday Tribune and The Straits Times be enough to pass GNG? Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 03:24, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability is shown through significant coverage, as noted above by Somebodyidkfkdt, for the subject in the reporting by the Morning Tribune, Malaya Tribune, Sunday Tribune and The Straits Times. Meets WP:GNG to show notability and passes basic criteria for WP:BASIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 06:30, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources 3 to 7 are trivial coverage of his death where each article has a single paragraph announcing his death while the rest are lengthy records of who turned up at his funeral wake. Source 1 and 2 has some coverage but the articles are only due to his retirement. This does not present WP:SIGCOV While the newspapers are regional in nature, the coverage is entirely local to Singapore. The article will be WP:RUNOFTHEMILL with no establishment of notability of the BLP subject. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 06:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RUNOFTHEMILL is an essay, and source 3 also gives significant coverage. WP:AUD states that regional media is a strong indicator of notability. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 07:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source 3
Paragraph 1 - 1 sentence mentioning subject has died.

Paragraph 2 - 2 sentences mentioning his age and family and funeral details.

Paragraph 3 - 1 sentence mentioning his retirement and his previous job.

Paragraph 4 - 1 sentence mentioning his hobby.
It failed to provide any significant coverage of subject beside a typical obituary of death time/place, family, past job and hobby. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 07:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the rest of the sources are not significant coverage, wouldn't he then be able to pass WP:BASIC, since there are five sources which aren't significant? Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 10:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sources 3 to 7 are still trivial coverage which would not amount to WP:BASIC (just imagine putting up obituary notices in multiple papers in different countries). Also, if a person is notable, there should be coverage over his life, not only at retirement and death. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:46, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, if he wasn't notable, there would not be coverage of his retirement. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 03:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG on coverage and WP:JUDGE on role in life. Seems relatively uncontroversially so to me in both cases... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As the article's creator, I am not sure if I am allowed to do this, if I am not, can someone just strike out the keep? I believe the first two sources count towards GNG as they are both regional papers and are about the subject. I think the other five sources together also count towards notability per WP:BASIC. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 10:59, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:19, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:04, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:19, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Sergienko

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

No assertion of importance or significance. This recently translated BLP has been created by an account that admits COI/paid editing. Two images have been uploaded to support the article, both apparent resume photos, claimed by the page creator as "own work". Two quotes, apparently by the subject, are inserted with no attempt at citation but don't seem to appear in presented sources. Prior COI and Notability tags have been removed by page creator. On the merits, the article claims the subject is a working standup comic with some minor television credits, a low bar for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Since all of the presented sources are in the original Russian, I'm assuming good faith. However, this seems a purely promotional work with all the signs of likely paid editing. BusterD (talk) 02:30, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Russia. BusterD (talk) 02:30, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article's a mess (literally - I tried it myself - a Google translate of the Russian), COI/UPE is an issue and sourcing is likewise all over the place. fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is not hard to figure out based on the sources/quality of the sources. The paid editing usually is a red flag for me that the subject isn't notable. If they were, people would write about them, for free, on wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 21:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leave the article, because there are also authoritative sources, the same first state channel in Russia, there is a separate story about this character, when he was still 12 years old, at the moment there are sources about his career! --Karol DEO (talk) 09:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Star Mississippi 15:32, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 L'Open 35 de Saint-Malo

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

Reviewed during new page patrol. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. No GNG type sources and use of the SNG wp:seasons way in requires primarily prose as an indicator of such which this misses by far. The only reference is their own website. Tagged by others for such issues since May with no references added North8000 (talk) 02:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Tennis, and France. ––FormalDude talk 07:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No national coverage in French sources, only local coverage in Ouest-France or on tennis websites. Would appear to be a low-level tournament. Oaktree b (talk) 21:23, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources don't have to be national in scope or "general interest" for them to count towards GNG. In my searches I have found [3] [4] and [5], which along with the sources Oaktree b mentions (but does not link to) should be enough to meet GNG. The nominator should also be well aware that GNG passing sources don't need to be in an article for an article to survive NPP (they only need to exist). Iffy★Chat -- 20:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I limited my searches to only .fr websites and get: [6]. First one in Ouest-France is [7], "Five good reasons to go to the open 35 de tennis this weekend", appears to be a brief mention of 5 good things at the tournament. [8] talks about the opening of the tournament. I didn't think they qualified as substantial articles, mostly brief mentions. Other mentions of the Kinesiologists at the tournament and how local students are going to it. Nothing terribly notable about these articles, reliable, yes, substantial, no. Oaktree b (talk) 03:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sharing your sources. I've now also found [9] (more significant regional coverage of the tournament) and [10], showing that the tournament received TV coverage in addition to the text sources we've been discussing. Iffy★Chat -- 11:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG. Henriklars (talk) 08:16, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I think the sources linked by Iffy as well as the other sources that are referenced above which exist but aren't in the article are enough to get this one over the WP:GNG line. Adamtt9 (talk) 11:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rashed Khamis

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant sourcing found online via WP:BEFORE in English or Arabic (stub on ar-wiki). No significant coverage in sources on page. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 01:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: can someone please confirm why football/soccer is not covered specifically at NSPORT, one of the most popular sports in the world? Yet there are specific criteria for curling and MMA? I tend to avoid football AFDs for this reason, is there a football/soccer specific criteria for those players who do not need general notability but have played for a national league? MaxnaCarta (talk) 03:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NSPORTS2022 for the most recent RfC on the subject; WP:NFOOTY is deprecated as a result of removing participation-based criteria. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 05:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and United Arab Emirates. ––FormalDude talk 07:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with MaxnaCarta and avoid football AfDs for precisely the same reason - that and the ardent pile-on you get when you argue that one appearance for Wigan is not notability. Having waded through the links shared by Iseult I am none the wiser. However, by any standard, Rashed with one appearance for Hatta fails WP:GNG, let alone WP:SPORTSPERSON. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:59, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexandermcnabb: essentially, all footballers must pass WP:GNG on their own merits, and the arguments by appearances are no longer valid as of April. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 15:38, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Having reviewed the consensus discussions regarding sport notability, I am more confident in submitting a comment on this AFD. GNG does not apply as there is not significant coverage by multiple reliable and independent sources either in the article or elsewhere. No hits in the library, nothing appropriate on Google, Newspapers, or wayback. Consensus is that there needs to be at least one significant source. Not seeing it. Happy to change my submission if anyone finds proper sourcing elsewhere. MaxnaCarta (talk) 02:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:43, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Habib Yousuf

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant sourcing found online via WP:BEFORE in English or Arabic (stub on ar-wiki). No significant coverage in sources on page. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 01:31, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and United Arab Emirates. ––FormalDude talk 07:51, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:43, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Does not show notability. 85.150.93.249 (talk) 14:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:41, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Waleed

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant sourcing found online via WP:BEFORE in English or Arabic (stub on ar-wiki). No significant coverage in sources on page. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 01:29, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and United Arab Emirates. ––FormalDude talk 07:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:43, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)} 02:47, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saeed Al-Mesmari

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant sourcing found online via WP:BEFORE in English or Arabic (stub on ar-wiki). No significant coverage in sources on page. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 01:28, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and United Arab Emirates. ––FormalDude talk 07:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:43, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only passing mentions found in an Arabic search Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:47, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2020 United States presidential electors

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

Although the United States Electoral College is a notable topic, the actual electors themselves are generally non-notable (as a position - they may be notable in other roles, e.g. mayor of a city, state representative, etc). I do not believe there are RS that discuss the "full list" of electors in a given presidential election year. Each state publishes their list of electors as part of an official record, or in the official documents for certifying the election, but this topic is not widely discussed in independent sources.

Note, if deleted, other articles in the Category:Lists of United States presidential electors should also be reviewed and deleted. Natg 19 (talk) 01:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Lists of people, Politics, and United States of America. Natg 19 (talk) 01:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 01:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If the result is keep, the article needs major work, as it is in very poor shape at the moment. Curbon7 (talk) 02:16, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can handle the clean-up, since it's looking like it's snowing. Curbon7 (talk) 01:43, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Anyone can be selected, it doesn't matter who. And saying who they voted for is misleading, the voters decided, they just did what they were suppose to. Dream Focus 03:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see a clear policy based-reason for delete in the nomination. Are there problems with WP:SALAT, WP:LSC, WP:NLIST? Worth emphasising NLIST here: "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable" The idea that the 2020 Electoral College membership in toto is not notable seems rather at odds with the ... um .... staying NPOV here .... incidents around the tallying of the 2020 EC vote. FWIW, sources speaking of the 2020 electors in toto: All 538 electors have voted, formalizing Biden's 306-232 win - CBS News, Al Jazeera speaks to Biden and Trump electors before Monday’s Electoral College vote, After voting for Donald Trump, Texas electors ask swing states to reject results that assured victory for Joe Biden - Texas Tribune Electoral college confirms Joe Biden's victory in presidential election - The Guardian US Presidential Electors Confirm Joe Biden’s Victory - VOA News. Not declaring a !vote for this one at the moment, as I would appreciate the nominator (or others) responding to these points and hearing alternative views. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The reasons presented for deletion are that the individual people aren't notable (but this is an exhaustive list, not a list of examples, so individual notability is irrelevant), that sources do not discuss the full list (but we only need sources which discuss them as a group, and there's no shortage of those), "anyone can be selected" (so what?). On the other hand, the people who actually cast the ballots in the electoral college -- some of them bound to the voters, some not -- come up every election, especially when the election's going to be close or when people start talking about electoral college funny business. Every election there are sources which talk about who the electors are, who the individual electors are in your particular state, etc., alongside the "what if" speculation. I'd argue that while the subject is notable for a list on its own, it's also a completely valid spin-off of 2020 United States presidential election. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- PS: Delete all isn't a valid outcome here. If you want this to apply to other pages, you have to formally nominate them, not just say it'll apply. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid subtopic of both the national article and respective state articles. There is substantial coverage of these electors as a whole and by each state's slate. Reywas92^Talk 13:05, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Reywas92 and Rhododendrites. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Goldsztaijn (I think the sourcing tips the balance) and Rhododendrites. As for binding votes, that's not the case in some states (see 2016 for an example). Iseult^Δxparlez moi 19:25, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (notified). As Rhododendrites states, this is an exhaustive list of Americans who play a formal role in electing the president. The entire content of the list is verifiable and portions of the list receive significant (if routine) coverage. --Enos733 (talk) 02:44, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears it's not just me. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:27, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a topic that is noteworthy both historically and in the present day. Also there are plenty of sources for most of the people who are public figures. As long as it's clear that the electors are voting on behalf of their state then I think its fine. Unless like in past years you have someone votes for someone else then they should be highlighted. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 04:57, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rhododendrites and Reywas92. Passes WP:GNG and WP:NLIST. Sal2100 (talk) 17:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG and WP:NLIST.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sourcing indicates that the list passes WP:NLIST, which only requires the group to be significantly covered. The nom objects to non-notable individuals being listed, but the way to resolve that is to suggest selection criteria and try to gain consensus through ordinary editing and discussion in line with WP:DEL-CONTENT. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 03:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:43, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Met English

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

No sourcing found. WP:BEFORE involving GBooks turned up only false positives using the phrase "met English" in other contexts, even with "MetLife" and "programming" added. Prod by Jax 0677 contested without comment Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Had a pretty a pretty productive search on GBooks including finding pointers to a court case involving the language(!)[11] and a paper[12] which goes pretty in depth on its use and operation. Artw (talk) 15:13, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the article remains slight would also accept and an appropraite list of business computing languages exist would also accept a merge there. Not seeing a candidate that quite fits the bill. Artw (talk) 15:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
comment you appear to have removed your own Prod, what’s up with that? Artw (talk) 15:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article had already been prodded by Jax 0677, which I did not realize until after I had applied my own prod. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers for the clarification! Artw (talk) 15:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here's a couple of things I found. [13], [14] This pre-dated the internet, makes searching difficult. Jacona (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First one might just be a reflection back of Wikipedia, unfortunately. Second is pretty slight. Artw (talk) 14:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This shows it in use up through the 90s but is not really usable. Artw (talk) 14:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have heard of this, and suspect it has some mentions in old textbooks somewhere, but I can’t find any significant coverage. I actually know a current day programmer at MetLife, but they are on different platforms and arrived far too late to use this code. While it’s possible a mention of this may belong in a history of programming somewhere, I don’t think it deserves a stand alone article. Jacona (talk) 13:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lean delete: I couldn't find any mention in Google Scholar. Google Books lists a bunch of things that I don't think are coverage of the topic in question. Caleb Stanford (talk) 20:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. This was relisted in error. I was looking at another AfD and clicked on the wrong page view. Apologies. Thanks for the catch @ Simione001 Ad Orientem (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nishan Velupillay

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:09, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Australia. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:09, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Young Australian footballer who won the FFA Cup in 2021 with Melbourne Victory. Article needs improving not deleting. Simione001 (talk) 23:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not valid reasons to keep an article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even done a google search? There are many mentions of him this one being the most significant I could find without making much effort. [15] Simione001 (talk) 23:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - young player with ongoing professional career, subject to coverage such as 1, 2, 3. Giant Snowman 13:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 1. The Football Sack relies on a huge group of amateur "interns" for these articles, not professional journalists, with no evidence of editorial oversight. This is no better than a group blog and should be removed per BLP. 2. The FTBL article is a routine match recap with at most 3 sentences relevant to Velupillay; far from SIGCOV. 3. Ditto for Stadium Astro link. 4. The Daily Telegraph link requires me to change my browser settings to allow cookies, so I don't know what it says. But if it's another couple brief mentions then that too doesn't contribute to GNG. How many successful AfDs will it take before such clearly routine reports aren't proffered as "SIGCOV" anymore? JoelleJay (talk) 00:06, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Melbourne_Victory_FC#Players - fails WP:GNG per JoelleJay. BilledMammal (talk) 05:14, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:BEFORE not correctly done in my opinion, vetting websites again above on a few links and not performing a google search yourself? News website 7news clear mentions him in their article about a Melbourne match and there are more like that if one goes looking. GNG, SIGCOV fail my ass. This guy clearly passes that. [16], multiple sources to be found, I can't be bothered to go through the rest. Govvy (talk) 06:51, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your first link is identical to the FTBL article, which, again, is routine match reporting explicitly excluded by SPORTCRIT. Your second link is not independent (match coverage from the opponent team) and also only has two brief mentions of Velupillay in a routine recap. Do you only look at the headlines and total article length or something?! JoelleJay (talk) 21:31, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And who says I didn't do my own search? Google News had literally nothing more significant beyond what was already mentioned, and the first three pages of regular Google returned exclusively database junk and wiki mirrors. JoelleJay (talk) 21:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - First, he is young footballer with an ongoing career in a fully pro league (24 appearances). Not only does she have sources as well, when you put his name in Google search (e.g. Nishan Velupillay) there are a ton of search suggestions (e.g. "Nishan Velupillay family" and "Nisgan Velupillay malaysia"), which indicates he is known enough in Australia (and probably other countries). Lastly, this additional source shows how he is seen as a rising star and he won his club's Young Player of the Year Award, which is pretty significant. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 07:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Das osmnezz, which sources do you believe contribute to GNG? Nothing else you said is compliant with the P&Gs. JoelleJay (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not edit your comment after others have replied to it. And I don't see anything SIGCOV in the new link, unless you mean the two sentences accompanying his name on a list? It doesn't matter how popular he appears to you, all that matters is whether there is currently coverage in significant detail, and that has not been demonstrated. If it was valid to cobble together a biography out of small bites of info from different sources, we would have articles on every middle school coach and town councilperson in America. And if an editor's opinion that a subject "seems famous" based on their subjective evaluation of a source was acceptable evidence of notability, we would have articles on leaders of every niche hobby. But Wikipedia is explicitly not an indiscriminate collection of verifiable factoids that are interesting to some people, it is an encyclopedia, so we have to rely on existence of comprehensive secondary coverage to meet notability. JoelleJay (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Why is this being relisted? Seems a consensus has been reached. Simione001 (talk) 01:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Simione001:, I agree, I feel like articles (at least the ones I see) only get relisted if the consensus is to keep and not the other way round. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 05:41, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above arguments. St Anselm (talk) 15:22, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)} 02:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alton Chapman

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

WP:BEFORE check turns up very few sources, none of which meet WP:42. All of the current references in the article are interviews/their personal webpage. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 00:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, and United States of America. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 00:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. A credible claim of significance is required to avoid speedy deletion in accordance with WP:A7, and no independent reliable sources can be found to confirm notability. This article doesn't make any credible assertions of notability. I was about to speedy-delete it accordingly, but didn't do so because of this AfD nomination. If another administrator agrees with my assessment, go ahead and speedy-delete it. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hispanic and Latino communities in Metro Atlanta. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mexicans in Atlanta

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

This paragraph can be redirected to Atlanta or Demographics of Atlanta ( Hispanic and Latino Communities in Atlanta already redirects there) there is room for the paragraph I redirected this article and an editor removed the redirect. Bruxton (talk) 00:04, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Bruxton (talk) 00:10, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mexicans are the largest Latino group and immigrant group in Atlanta. The Mexican population is rapidly increasing in Georgia and Atlanta. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.212.237.197 (talk) 02:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Demographics of Atlanta, creating articles about the intersection of a specific immigrant group from a specific country and a specific city is just not justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:05, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per JPL. Note that the IP editor is now blocked, per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HipHopVisionary. Drmies (talk) 13:25, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mexicans play a major important role in the society of Atlanta. According to WP guidelines, this is a notable article.Gangger100 (talk) 14:05, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete entirely covered by Hispanic_and_Latino_communities_in_Metro_Atlanta already JeffUK (talk) 16:45, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per above, Alex-h (talk) 14:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hispanic and Latino communities in Metro Atlanta. Doesn't seem to be much novel information in this article that isn't in that one, and from a cursory look of searching it's much easier to find content about the broader ethnic category than a national group like Mexicans. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 22:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hispanic and Latino communities in Metro Atlanta. This is an unnecessary WP:FORK.4meter4 (talk) 15:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect to Hispanic_and_Latino_communities_in_Metro_Atlanta or merge to Demographics of Atlanta?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:05, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to either of the articles mentioned, not terribly fussed about which one. The article here is mostly a collection of numbers/statistics, no real mention of why the group is important or any sort of local cultural aspect of it all. Oaktree b (talk) 03:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hispanic and Latino communities in Metro Atlanta, doesn't need a separate article. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 19:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teresa of Jesus, Child}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phasing and Recoverability}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New R. S. J. Public School}}<!--Relisted-->