Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 September 11

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< September 10	September 12 >

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 keep. – Joe (talk) 07:17, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GeekWire

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

Promotional article. Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Sawada Katsuo (talk) 07:11, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:47, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:47, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator has been blocked for spamming. I am not closing this nomination so that it can be evaluated on its merits (or lack thereof) - just because they are a spammer doesn't mean they're wrong. MER-C 17:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at [1], I think it obvious that GeekWire is a routinely cited source. I was surprised to not find it on WP:RSP. If this is not closed procedurally, which I recommend given the behavior of the nominator in AfD'ing a lot of media articles, it likely should be kept. Jclemens (talk) 18:35, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Local technology news outlet that does get quoted and reprinted in other, more established sources (e.g. The Seattle Times) and has independent coverage. Definitely meets notability guidelines, even if the article is need of improvement (see Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup). Sounder Bruce 07:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. – Joe (talk) 07:16, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TheFeature

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

Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Sawada Katsuo (talk) 07:10, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:49, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator has been blocked for spamming. I am not closing this nomination so that it can be evaluated on its merits (or lack thereof) - just because they are a spammer doesn't mean they're wrong. MER-C 17:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Related discussions: 2006-08 Seattle Wireless (closed as ✓ keep)

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. – Joe (talk) 07:16, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ranker

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

Promotional article. Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Sawada Katsuo (talk) 07:07, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:30, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:30, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:31, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator has been blocked for spamming. I am not closing this nomination so that it can be evaluated on its merits (or lack thereof) - just because they are a spammer doesn't mean they're wrong. MER-C 17:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Related discussions: 2021-07 Murphy (novella) (closed as redirect all)

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 07:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hum Mart

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

Promotional article. Does not meet WP:SIGCOV. Sawada Katsuo (talk) 07:03, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:48, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:48, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator has been blocked for spamming. I am not closing this nomination so that it can be evaluated on its merits (or lack thereof) - just because they are a spammer doesn't mean they're wrong. MER-C 17:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This article has 6 valid and working references from the major newspapers of Pakistan – Dawn, Pakistan Today and Daily Times (Pakistan). Plenty of independent, third party news coverage. Passes WP:SIGCOV. Ngrewal1 (talk) 18:21, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 07:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Arnold (Internet entrepreneur)

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

Promotional article. Does not meet WP:SIGCOV. Sawada Katsuo (talk) 06:57, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:41, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The nominator's contributions Sawada Katsuo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) consist almost entirely of AfD nominations. I would remind the nominator that a promotional tone, if it exists, can be removed by editing (WP:SOFIXIT) and that WP:BEFORE is a requirement before an article can properly be nominated for deletion. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:49, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 16:15, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator has been blocked for spamming. I am not closing this nomination so that it can be evaluated on its merits (or lack thereof) - just because they are a spammer doesn't mean they're wrong. MER-C 17:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Concur that the promotional tone needs to go but there does exist independent coverage in Wall Street Journal Entrepreneur Magazine NY Times Forbes maclean (talk) 03:35, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with all above, the tone and sourcing need work. In addition to Maclean25's sources above, here are several more from the Atlanta newspapers covering his various moves: Oct 2000 Oct 2000 continued, Oct 2003 Oct 2003 continued, and Oct 2007 and Oct 2007 continued. No, I do not know why the Atlanta Journal-Constitution has a habit of writing articles about him in October. --Krelnik (talk) 15:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 10:18, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Chang (web designer)

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

Promotional. Does not meet WP:SIGCOV. Sawada Katsuo (talk) 06:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 16:15, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 16:15, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 16:15, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator has been blocked for spamming. I am not closing this nomination so that it can be evaluated on its merits (or lack thereof) - just because they are a spammer doesn't mean they're wrong. MER-C 17:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree, promotional, non-notable person. Oaktree b (talk) 23:54, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Oaktree b and Sawada Katsuo. Worth noting it was nominated for a deletion back in 2007 and kept per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Chang (with a different Article name then) ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 07:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Belgharia High School

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

This page is scheduled for deletion because this article is very short and there are no citations for verification. Papai Bachar (talk) 06:33, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Papai Bachar (talk) 07:27, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Papai Bachar (talk) 07:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A tip for the nominator, who is likely inexperienced here: being a stub is not a qualifier for deletion. Curbon7 (talk) 16:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has some references now. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:51, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after WP:HEY by Eastmain .Further the school is one of the oldest in Kolkata founded in 1872 passes WP:NSCHOOL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:25, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as article has references, and stubbiness is not a qualification for deletion.Jackattack1597 (talk) 20:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 10:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael J. Callahan (entrepreneur)

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

Does not meet WP:SIGCOV. Sawada Katsuo (talk) 06:52, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:49, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:49, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator has been blocked for spamming. I am not closing this nomination so that it can be evaluated on its merits (or lack thereof) - just because they are a spammer doesn't mean they're wrong. MER-C 17:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to have been created by an SPA and the sourcing is a mix of non-RS, non-independent sources, and press releases. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete primarily due to lack of RS that could have covered the subject significantly. Chirota (talk) 05:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 23:18, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crombie REIT

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

Promotional article. Does not meet WP:NCORP since sources are largely WP:ROUTINE coverage. Sawada Katsuo (talk) 06:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:40, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:40, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:51, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:51, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator has been blocked for spamming. I am not closing this nomination so that it can be evaluated on its merits (or lack thereof) - just because they are a spammer doesn't mean they're wrong. MER-C 17:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:04, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A company that is a component of a stock market index such as the S&P/TSX Composite Index can be expected to be notable. As well, there are several good references in the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:59, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not automatically, see WP:LISTED. We need references, I've check for analyst reports but the first quick check hasn't turned up anything although it is "covered" by analysts. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:44, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Eastmain.4meter4 (talk) 16:28, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: HighKing's concerns have not been addressed by participants
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 23:00, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as it is a component of a major stock index.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 11:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Boardwalk Real Estate Investment Trust

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP since sources are largely WP:ROUTINE coverage. Sawada Katsuo (talk) 06:42, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:28, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:28, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. The ones from the Edmonton Journal and Policy Options are particularly useful. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:29, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator has been blocked for spamming. I am not closing this nomination so that it can be evaluated on its merits (or lack thereof) - just because they are a spammer doesn't mean they're wrong. MER-C 17:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Eastmain. Lagoyan (talk) 16:32, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Found articles in Canadian news outlets including Financial Post and Calgary Herald Apopolips (talk) 23:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 07:17, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tricon Residential

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

Promotional article by WP:UPE. Does not meet WP:NCORP since sources are largely WP:ROUTINE coverage. Sawada Katsuo (talk) 06:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:11, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:11, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator has been blocked for spamming. I am not closing this nomination so that it can be evaluated on its merits (or lack thereof) - just because they are a spammer doesn't mean they're wrong. MER-C 17:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ORG. gnews reveals mainly press release type articles. LibStar (talk) 04:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Company has a lot of online news coverage. A deep look reveals coverage in Wall Street Journal, The Star, BNN Bloomberg, San Antonio Express-News, The Tennessean, Nashville Post and Forbes. Apopolips (talk) 00:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A simple google search shows articles in reliable sources. The article itself already cites many news sources covering Tricon such as The Globe and Mail, Financial Post and other Canadian media.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dogma in the Catholic Church. – Joe (talk) 07:19, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Assent of faith

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

This article's main point is already discussed in various articles (Dogma in the Catholic Church, Faith, et al.) and scholarly and theological discussion on it from a specifically Catholic POV, though available, is too scant and obscure to warrant an article outside of the more general articles on faith and epistemology. GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 05:15, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 05:15, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 05:15, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dogma in the Catholic Church. If kept it should be renamed to Assent of faith (Catholic). However it reads to me like an attempt to produce a short creed, probably a heterodox one as I thought the basic beliefs of the Catholic Church were enshrined in the Apostles and Nicene Creeds. I am not a Catholic, so do not really know. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:20, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 23:59, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Internet entrepreneurs

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

List article does not meet WP:NLIST- lacks clearly defined inclusion criteria supported by sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:13, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 05:24, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 05:24, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 05:24, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Search results return lists of Internet entrepreneurs by certain categories, especially by wealth, success or country. Among them are [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] and [7], but I don't know if they're good enough for the article to meet WP:NLIST. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 05:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:52, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One sourced, easily a magnet for non-notables to be thrown onto the list with no scrutiny. The category system works better for a list like this. Nate • (chatter) 00:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Astig. A clearer criteria for inclusion/focus to the list could be sorted out through editorial consensus on the talk page. 4meter4 (talk) 16:31, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 23:05, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We should keep lists which can aid navigation or provide information and I would say the list fits in WP:LISTN. It is not indiscriminate and the list is defined. Lightburst (talk) 15:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 07:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arushi Nishank

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

Concerns of WP:GNG and WP:N, WP:RS and notability not inherited. Ht24 (talk) 09:25, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Even though her father is important, the coverage in reliable sources is of her, not of her father. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:28, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Although the coverage is that of Arushi Nishank, the sources cited are not reliable. Please read this and check if the media houses cited here are in this list. Ht24 (talk) 11:29, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find anything notable about her. Eevee01^(talk) 03:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well I looked up the English language references and none of them are on the list WP:RSP. One of the references in the article is to [8]. Isn't that a satisfactory article? I'm not confident that the searching for sources going on here is adequate. Thincat (talk) 10:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the India Herald article is significant RS. There may be foreign language sources also. I am going to ping two editors who comment regularly at India related AFDs who are proficient at searching in foreign languages for this region. Goldsztajn and Tayi Arajakate would you mind searching for foreign language references on this individual?4meter4 (talk) 00:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 04:47, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:NBIO. Also likely to be a self-written biography. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:23, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article needs clean up, caution a plenty given the BJP/current government connections and no doubt concern over the influence of PR/churnalism. Nevertheless, there's substantial multi-year RS coverage available, meets BASIC.^[1](Same story, different source, English version^[2])^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]

References

^ "उत्तराखंड में आरुषि निशंक ने शुरू किया कोरोना राहत अभियान, NGO स्पर्श गंगा के जरिए कर रहीं मदद". Zee Uttar Pradesh Uttarakhand (in Hindi). 29 May 2021.
^ Jain, Vaishali (29 May 2021). "Arushi Nishank launches COVID-19 Relief Campaign in Uttarakhand". www.indiatvnews.com.
^ "आरुषि निशंक को वर्ल्ड एनवायर्नमेंट डे पर खास सेरेमनी के लिए चुना गया गेस्ट ऑफ ऑनर". www.timesnowhindi.com (in Hindi). 5 June 2021.
^ "Coronavirus: केंद्रीय मंत्री की बेटी ने 10 हजार फौजियों के लिए बनाए खादी के मास्क". Patrika News (in Hindi). 29 April 2020.
^ "Arushi Nishank: I am using the lockdown to prepare for my next project 'Tarini' - Times of India". The Times of India. 25 May 2021.
^ October 30, Simi Kuriakose. "'Women should lend a helping hand to each other'". India Today.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

On the issue of paid news in the Indian media, this is a well-known problem (and not exclusive to India). The difficulty is what conclusion one draws: either all sources are permanently regarded as unreliable or a case-by-case basis is necessary. I see no community consensus for designating all sources implicated as unreliable, as such the onus is on an editor to show why a particular article from a claimed suspect source should be regarded as a paid news product. The alternative produces Salem-like outcomes (it floats...witch!). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:26, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources too flimsy for this marginal BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:57, 11 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Comment- Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR; according to this news article she has acted in only one music video and her debut movie and web series are yet to be released. Eevee01^(talk) 09:53, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I don't know what to say about this one. Goldsztajn has already dug through sources which give her enough coverage to meet WP:BASIC, if we take them at face value. But I'm not very comfortable !voting keep looking at the sources. Blanket assessment of Indian media sources would be erroneous, paid news do not equally afflict all news publications and the reliability of different publications can vary significantly both within and between them so case by case assessments are necessary. The problem in this case is perhaps not even paid news per se but that some of these sources are linked to the party itself so all it'd need is some nudging to get a couple features up, for examples on India TV, India.com (source provided by Eevee01) or Zee Uttar Pradesh Uttarakhand while this wouldn't be so easy to accomplish with say India Today. I wish more people would just bring sources to RSN instead of unilaterally assuming them to be either reliable or paid promotion and the like. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 10:48, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Deriving from Tayi Arajakate. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Medrar for contemporary art

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

I'm genuinely not sure how the previous AFD was not closed as "delete" given there was no opposition to the nomination. I also see that nothing has changed since then; there are barely any sources in the text, there is nothing in the search engines to indicate it is any more notable than it was six years ago, and less than ten edits to improve it since the last discussion. Primefac (talk) 11:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 11:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 11:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 11:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete coverage I see is limited to event listings and one about its move, nothing to meet WP:ORG. Any Arabic speakers willing to chime in to see if there's adequate non-English sourcing? And concur, that last one should have been treated as a PROD. Star Mississippi 12:29, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per Star Mississippi and nom.4meter4 (talk) 00:08, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 04:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is promotional piece rather than an encyclopedia article. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:18, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Coolperson177 (talk) 19:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Campion

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:16, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:20, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:20, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:OFFICEHOLDER. The article is short and needs updating but is about a holder of a notable office who is now in his second term. This is Paul (talk) 18:26, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PCCs (including this one) have received significant press coverage, albeit often on a local level. A police constituency can cover a population of several hundred thousand, or even into the millions. Indeed, the population of the West Mercia area is around 1.19 million. Consequently it is a notable post, and the holder of it is likely to attract ongoing media attention, thus making them notable. Campion's move to make the post a police and fire commissioner also adds weight to this article's notability. This is not a post akin to the leader of a local council. This is Paul (talk) 19:26, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looking at WP:POLITICIAN he doesn't have significant coverage, hasn't held anything other than local office, and is otherwise unremarkable and non-notable. Certainly no PCC in England and Wales is automatically notable by merit of being the officeholder. --10mmsocket (talk) 21:33, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the consensus at the time the office was created was for PCCs to be notable in the same way we create articles for every elected MP, MSP, MS and so on (many of who have also previously only held local office, if any at all). We could have this discussion about any number of these PCCs, so perhaps what is needed is a wider debate about whether holders of the office should automatically qualify for articles, or whether the information could be incorporated into individual articles about the position (for example, there is an article for West Mercia Police and Crime Commissioner into which details of those elected to the post could be merged, particularly if they are not notable for anything else). This is Paul (talk) 23:11, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is that consensus recorded anywhere? At the moment we have one article for the office, e.g. the aforementioned West Mercia Police and Crime Commissioner, then we have potentially between one and three individual articles for each of the people elected into the role. I for one would support having the former, but only having the latter if the person is truly notable (which I guess would apply to around a quarter or less of those elected) 10mmsocket (talk) 06:16, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I mean what is the current consensus on the WP:NPOL status of PCCs. For example, in the federal system of the US, county sheriffs are not automatically notable, but statewide officials are. However, the UK makes this confusing, as West Mercia is neither a region nor a county, but rather a collection of counties. Per List of administrative divisions by country, a region is the equivalent to a province, while a shire county is the equivalent of a county. Curbon7 (talk) 03:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment above. I am not aware there is consensus. 100% of the role articles have been created and I support that, but not 100% of the role holder articles (such as the one in this AfD nomination). I wouldn't get to hung up on counties vs. collection of counties. We have a specific number of police departments in England and Wales (plus one each in Scotland and Northern Ireland). Some are one county, some are one or more counties due to previous mergers, but all have the same equivalent status to each other, i.e. there is no hierarchy. 10mmsocket (talk) 06:19, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While there’s no written consensus specifically for the office of police and crime commissioner, consensus does come from the equal status they appear to have been given with MPs, etc. I seem to remember the articles on the individuals predate the police constituency articles, but could be wrong. Merging them into the office articles is a solution, but could be awkward and confusing. Why don’t we merge non-notable MPs into their constituency articles, for example?

As I’ve said above, we could have this discussion about any number of these PCCs, and a wider discussion is probably needed about what to do going forward. Comparisons between countries is confusing, since these are not county sheriffs, nor are they people elected to a legislature. If anything they would have the same status as a directly elected mayor. I’m going to raise this matter at WP:UKPOLITICS because I think it needs addressing. By the way, I hope you’re aware that we don’t have such things as police departments in the UK. This is Paul (talk) 12:15, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete PCCs fail WP:NPOLITICIAN in the same way that leaders of county councils do and I fail to see why they should be considered more notable. Number 57 14:32, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- In response to the comments above, Kent County Council covers a population of 1.58 million, Hampshire CC 1.38 million, Essex CC 1.49 million and Lancashire CC 1.22 million, so I would argue that this is very much akin to being the leader of a county council, if not actually less notable as they are only responsible for one thing, rather than many public services. Number 5 7 19:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pretty much every PCC has an article. I think trying to get rid of them piecemeal is not at all productive. They generally satisfy WP:GNG in any case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 23:50, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- No personal offense is meant, but WP:PERNOM is so unhelpful in this instance. Curbon7 (talk) 00:15, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None taken. I kept it short because WP:NPOL doesn't really apply to PCCs and GNG is the pertinent guideline. The keep votes haven't really made a good argument under GNG for John Campion in particular, and I'm just not seeing one. Hence the reason I voted the way I did. 4meter4 (talk) 00:32, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 04:41, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:NPOL or WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:13, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ for my reasons listed above. PCCs generally satisfy WP:GNG and WP:OFFICEHOLDER. Many of these articles have existed now for as long as nine years without incident. During that time we've been through three sets of elections after which articles on newly elected PCCs have been created. As far as I can tell none have been contested until now, which makes me think policy is unclear on the importance/non-importance of this office. Comparisons above are drawn with local councillors, or county council leaders, although (perhaps as a result of the UK media's focus on law and order) PCCs tend to get much more media coverage; the office is clearly something different to that of an elected councillor and/or sheriff. PCCs shape policing policy in an area, control the budget, and have the power to hire and dismiss a force's chief constable {https://www.choosemypcc.org.uk/about-pccs/}, but the office is a wholly political one with PCCs not drawn from serving police officers. Finally, attempts to improve this article were undermined when content that would add to a notability case for WP:BIO was removed. This is Paul (talk) 09:51, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That content was moved because it was about actions carried out as the elected official not as an individual. There is a distinction - the content would be relevant to the PCC article even if this individual article didn't exist. 10mmsocket (talk) 11:47, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The two are separate entities. The article is about the role of office itself, not the actions and decisions made by those who hold it. Consider whether you would do the same thing for a Member of Parliament and their constituency article, or articles about an individual trade union leader and that role. This is Paul (talk) 14:09, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as PCCS are elected over a large area, with electorates even larger than those of members of parliament.Jackattack1597 (talk) 20:32, 18 September 2021 (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)} 19:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He satisfy WP:OFFICEHOLDER. -GorgonaJS (talk) 00:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this nomination was launched less than 60 seconds after unrelated edits elsewhere. Any suggestion WP:BEFORE was done defies common sense. I doubt the subject is even in the nominator's search history. It follows, then, that "per nom" contributions here are valueless and should be disregarded, along with simplistic appeals to the same guidelines the nominator blindly cites. What's left are well-thought-through arguments about how this subject meets our inclusion criteria, as marginal as that notability might be in this instance. There's also a solid case to be made for all subjects in this category being considered notable, but that's probably a matter of RFC to establish some consensus. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:58, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an elected official whose election was covered by the BBC as well as local publications certainly meets WP:GNG and WP:NPOL (PCCs role probably falls somewhere between a judge and politician in the guidelines). Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:59, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An elected representative with 100,000+ votes from a region covering 1.3 million people. Always worth noting in cases such as these the arbitrary problem of using NPOL as an exclusionary tool: there are near 50 states with populations of less than 1.2 million whose national politicians are automatically accorded presumed notability. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:00, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @This is Paul: it appears that with this edit, you !voted a second time (no doubt in good faith!); I've struck the second one. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:10, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Goldsztajn: it was in good faith. I thought I had to vote again because the article had been relisted. Thanks for doing that anyway. This is Paul (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I would think that the holder of an elected office covering a significant area is likely to be someone that people would search Wikipedia to find information about, and he seems to attract enough media coverage to suggest general notability. Dunarc (talk) 20:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: IMO, PCC is an inherently notable position (with electorates several times larger than those of MPs) and, from what I can see, this article has enough valid references to prove this particular individual's notability. I don't really see why this page has been nominated in the first place. Gazamp (talk) 12:47, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 07:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Priyanka Tibrewal

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

Fails WP:NPOL. Recently announced political candidate whose only sourcing is routine election coverage. Curbon7 (talk) 04:28, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 04:28, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 04:28, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 04:28, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*KEEP Pass WP:ANYBIO This person has achieved great success in her carrer. and she have significant coverage in reliable sources. Not everyone accomplish and get so many recognitions from national media. very well deserved to be on the platform since she is inspiration to many fellow woman's and continuously working towards social causes. Joy Wick (talk) 04:49, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails WP:PROMO and WP:NPOL where "an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability".— TheWikiholic (talk) 06:54, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Fails WP:NPOL. This article is created for making her a high-profile heavyweight politician, which is not a good sign in Wikipedia. Remember a person is recognised ad famous in one event (a by-election) but doesn't mean she us popular at all. After all, she is a common advocate in Calcutta High Court. Unless she is elected, it is recommended to keep this in draft or deletion. Jyoti Roy (talk) 08:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails NPOL and GNG. Alphaonekannan (talk) 06:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a member of a political party and one who hasn't been elected in an election for either regional or national parliament yet doesn't meet WP:NPOL. Htanaungg (talk) 13:31, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Subject is a candidate in a high profile bye election from Bhabanipur (Vidhan Sabha constituency) against Mamata Banerjee hence has got coverage but fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG as of now.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:39, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as G5. 11Fox11 (talk) 05:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. With no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 00:17, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aagneyam

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

Completely unsourced. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 05:14, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 05:15, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:41, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Could someone who reads Malayalam search for the film by its Malayalam name, ആഗ്നേയം. which means ignition? When I search, I find ml:ആഗ്നേയം, which is a novel that doesn't seem to be related to the film. If the film was a box office success, as the article claims, references ought to exist. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:54, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:36, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 18:12, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Two weeks ago I asked "Could someone who reads Malayalam search for the film by its Malayalam name, ആഗ്നേയം. which means ignition?" I don't think anybody did (or if they did, they didn't report their results). Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:51, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is not completely unsourced, there is one given, although it is not cited inline. However, it is in a foreign language, which makes verifying the information within harder... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, if only to prevent a soft delete. In the absence of a convincing source analysis of the extent foreign language ref, I'm not seeing a strong argument for deletion. No prejudice against renomination if an editor who reads Malayalam come forward to argue for deletion.4meter4 (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 09:47, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bernd Bergmair

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

~~Notability of this BLP is largely inherited from MindGeek. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:38, 4 September 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:09, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 01:14, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 01:14, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:38, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:54, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - These are in-depth [9], [10]. Also Financial times is behind paywall [11] but would seem to be in-depth. The guy is behind Pornhub, one of the biggest adult sites, that is notable. Peter303x (talk) 20:24, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Peter303x demonstrates, there is easily enough to meet WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 23:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Peter303x.4meter4 (talk) 23:25, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No consensus would be a reasonable close here just on the numbers. However, many editors called for delete quoting WP:CRYSTAL without explaining that rationale any further. Others rightly pointed out that CRYSTAL does not forbid articles on future events, only unverifiable ones, and verifiability has not been challenged here. The CRYSTAL rationale, by itself, therefore is in my judgement, not a solid policy based rationale. A further argument put forward was that this fails NLIST because such lists are not found in sources. This claim was comprehensively refuted by ScottyWong with evidence.

A number of participants called for redirect on the basis that the list is duplicated in another article. A couple of participants also said the list should not be at both locations but were easy on which it was. This close does not prevent a future redirect, or removal of the duplicate list from List of tallest buildings. Not duplicating is a good idea, but which way round it should be can be decided by normal editorial discussion and action. It does not need to be resolved here right now. SpinningSpark 07:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of future tallest buildings

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

Topic lacks sources supporting that WP:NLIST is met. There are also WP:CRYSTALBALL concerns for an article about buildings that may or may not be constructed. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:06, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 01:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 01:11, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 01:13, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename to List of planned tallest buildings under construction and limit to those with reliable sources for actual construction underway. BD2412 T 00:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Thanks for the suggestion, I agree with this approach. Maybe simplify the title slightly to List of tallest buildings under construction? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:15, 4 September 2021 (UTC)~~ On second thoughts, I think the redirect suggested by Vladimir.copic is the best option. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no strong objection to that, but I don't want to be clear that it captures buildings under construction that have not yet reached any particularly great height, but for which the construction plans envision that result. BD2412 T 02:12, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How about a redirect instead to List of tallest buildings#Buildings under construction? Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rename/modify per the above suggestion. Jclemens (talk) 05:30, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just rename it. Most of the things listed have their own articles. Dream Focus 17:03, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to List of planned tallest buildings under construction as suggested above by BD2412. Waddles 🗩 🖉 20:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per BD2412. Kerberous (talk) 10:02, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are certainly notable tall buildings planned. This is not the forum for a rename, and I rather think editors of the list-article would have agonized about its naming at its Talk page before, or at a WikiProject talk page or elsewhere. I think participants voting for a rename here already might know that the wp:RM process for a contested move is appropriate, would get the appropriate notice and attention and expertise applied. Although, frankly, IMO the name is fine. --Doncram (talk) 20:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming is within the valid outcomes for an AfD. If the article isn't limited to "under construction", I think it becomes open slather for buildings that will never get built. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not "slather". I think renaming here in order to change the scope of the well-constructed list article would be inappropriate, too casually done by drive-by editors; changing the scope can/should be discussed at its Talk page. Buildings not under construction can be planned, documented, covered in reliable sources, too. --Doncram (talk) 04:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename Per BD2412. 172.58.110.212 (talk) 20:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this really falls foul of WP:CRYSTALBALL. This information is already covered here. Vladimir.copic (talk) 07:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Vladamir.copic. Or redirect, as he also suggested. Dronebogus (talk) 14:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just a fork article of subsection of List of tallest buildings. nirmal (talk) 00:53, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:33, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Vladamir.copic. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:45, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep falls within WP:LISTPURP, potentially could be merged back with a redirect to the section, but that would run the risk of bloating the parent article even if done carefully. Scheduled and expected future events have always been allowed under WP:CRYSTAL when verifiable without original research. While individual under-construction buildings are sometimes never finished, the same could be said for future sporting events or other similar topics, the key is that the event be highly likely to occur, once a project of this scale is initiated sunk costs mean that construction is nearly always continued to completion, hence the glut of towers that often finish after an economic downturn has started. Issues with sourcing for individual entries can be dealt with by normal editing, WP:NOTCLEANUP etc. I'm a bit meh on the rename as it's rather clunky, I think when readers are at this title most will already understand it to be a list of planned tallest buildings under construction without having that spelled out explicitly. A better strategy to avoid well-meaning but detrimental drive-by additions would be a more carefully worded lead, and perhaps a hidden note or two. 81.177.27.61 (talk) 16:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:13, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename per the comments above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:53, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Anything beyond currently being under construction (i.e. being approved, being on hold, and so on) is too WP:CRYSTAL-y for my comfort. I have no strong opinions about whether the buildings under construction should be covered at this article (in which case a rename would be called for) or at List of tallest buildings#Buildings under construction, but they shouldn't be covered at both (because then we would have a WP:REDUNDANTFORK). So either keep this article while tightening up the scope (and changing the title) and removing that section from the other article, or delete/redirect this article to that section. TompaDompa (talk) 01:15, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL.4meter4 (talk) 23:18, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as it is already a part of List of tallest buildings defcon5 (talk) 12:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to a better title like List of tallest buildings under construction, and then delete the list at List of tallest buildings#Buildings under construction and link here instead with a hatnote. I don't think that this list violates WP:CRYSTAL, but the current title is strangely worded and I can see how it would make people think that it would. The list clearly states the inclusion criteria at the top, and seems to define a clear threshold for when a building should appear on the list. All other building "concepts" that never even got close to being constructed are included in a different list. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 14:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Vladimir.copic, TompaDompa and defcon5. List of future tallest buildings is already a part of the more comprehensive List of tallest buildings. List of future tallest buildings fails WP:NLIST because sources haven't covered a group of future tallest buildings. Rather, each source on the current page covers one building. Heartmusic678 (talk) 16:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Heartmusic678: What about these? [12] [13] [14] —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 19:23, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Im not sure the standard notability rule of “if there’s 3+ decent sources it’s notable” applies when the subject is relying on presumed future notability (i.e. predicting that the projects will actually be finished and therefore still notable in the future) and finite past notability (i.e. the fact that the projects were the tallest planned buildings at a certain point in time, in this case 2020). Neither of which is generally a good determinator of notability. Plus the list already exists in its entirety elsewhere on Wikipedia, so what’s the actual purpose of this article? Dronebogus (talk) 19:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Scottywong Thank you. My vote is still delete because the information is already present elsewhere, as Dronebogus and others mentioned. Heartmusic678 (talk) 21:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure, you might think that locating the content elsewhere is a better idea, and that's a valid opinion. I don't necessarily agree, but it's a legitimate argument. I was just refuting the notion that "sources haven't covered a group of future tallest buildings", which is apparently not true. If sources are covering these buildings, then they are, by definition, notable. We have articles on solar eclipses that won't happen for 100 years, and we can't be 100% sure that they'll actually happen (i.e. what if aliens come along and blow up the sun), but we're pretty sure. WP:CRYSTAL isn't a license to say "we can't have an article on anything that hasn't happened yet", we just have to be reasonably sure that it will happen. And, if a building is already under construction, I think it's safe to say that we can be reasonably sure that construction will be completed at some point. Of course, there are always exceptions, and we'll never be 100% right. But, considering that the majority of the buildings in this list are bluelinks, I think it's safe to say that notability shouldn't be a major concern here. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 03:22, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 10:37, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bangalore Bio-Cluster

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

A non-notable article about an informal grouping of three biological science research and development institutions. Any sources that one will find that mention this bio-cluster is done mainly in passing. And all do mention the three schools listed in the article, but again, it's only in passing. There's very little information about this bio-cluster that can establish why this informal grouping is notable outside of the three institutions. One of which is currently the subject of an Afd I started on the lack of sources similar to this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiCleanerMan (talk • contribs) 01:26, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:25, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No useful info worth putting in an encyclopedia. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 19:35, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, only references I could find were in passing. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:53, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gumwood, Delaware

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

This is pretty obviously a subdivision, though the label moves around so much it isn't clear which one. Searching is rendered nearly hopeless by the lumber. Mangoe (talk) 01:15, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 04:35, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 04:35, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Mangoe's assessment. Maps show Gumwood Drive leading into a small subdivision. –dlthewave ☎ 18:56, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: newspaper results are a huge pain in the ass, since the name of the subdivision also refers to a type of wood. I don't know if it will be possible to come up with anything this way. I am leaning towards "delete". Nothing interesting shows up on USGS maps from 1901 through 1993. In 2011, a "Gumwood" label shows up, but that isn't a whole lot to go by. jp×g 22:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable housing development Superman7515 (talk) 01:02, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Khloe Kardashian. – Joe (talk) 07:22, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good American

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

Remove Khloe Kardashian from the equation, and there's no substantial coverage about the company whatsoever. Fails WP:CORP and General Notability. Not deleting this would mean another advertorial remained on Wikipedia indefinitely. PK650 (talk) 00:21, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 00:21, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I disagree with the idea that we ought to remove from consideration one of the company's co-founders in determining if the company has substantial coverage. But see, for example, this Evening Standard article which focuses on the company's other co-founder, Emma Grede. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:32, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:41, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's still a notable company with significant coverage. Waddles 🗩 🖉 03:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To both of you !voting above, could you please provide evidence of extensive coverage in reliable sources about the company? You've merely cited a single example of an article about a co-founder, which actually furthers my deletion argument. PK650 (talk) 01:08, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick search on google shows coverage in Harper's Bazaar, E! Online, Cosmopolitan and other fashion news sites. Apopolips (talk) 01:12, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All related to its owner, not the company itself. PK650 (talk) 02:32, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage is mostly PR, failing WP:ORGIND and driven by the name. At the end of the day, it is a shop selling denim. A common occurance and mostly mediocre. WP:NOTINHERITED. scope_creep^Talk 08:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Khloe Kardashian. The article's sources show that the brand has no notability that is distinct from her. JBchrch talk 02:43, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, as the brand's notability is derived from its founderJackattack1597 (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "उत्तराखंड में आरुषि निशंक ने शुरू किया कोरोना राहत अभियान, NGO स्पर्श गंगा के जरिए कर रहीं मदद". Zee Uttar Pradesh Uttarakhand (in Hindi). 29 May 2021.

[2] Jain, Vaishali (29 May 2021). "Arushi Nishank launches COVID-19 Relief Campaign in Uttarakhand". www.indiatvnews.com.

[3] "आरुषि निशंक को वर्ल्ड एनवायर्नमेंट डे पर खास सेरेमनी के लिए चुना गया गेस्ट ऑफ ऑनर". www.timesnowhindi.com (in Hindi). 5 June 2021.

[4] "Coronavirus: केंद्रीय मंत्री की बेटी ने 10 हजार फौजियों के लिए बनाए खादी के मास्क". Patrika News (in Hindi). 29 April 2020.

[5] "Arushi Nishank: I am using the lockdown to prepare for my next project 'Tarini' - Times of India". The Times of India. 25 May 2021.

[6] October 30, Simi Kuriakose. "'Women should lend a helping hand to each other'". India Today.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]