Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 December 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jtrainor (talk | contribs) at 20:06, 14 December 2021 (Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laundry room.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< December 13 December 15 >

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. Consensus against deletion. Discussion to merge with utility room can continue on the talk page. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Laundry room

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

This lacks so much noteability that most wikis don't even have a page for it. It hasn't had any kind of notability references pretty much since it's creation, and has sat in it's current condition for pretty much a decade. Time for it to go. Jtrainor (talk) 20:06, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, it's a concept that doesn't exist in all societies that benefits from explanation. McPhail (talk) 00:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with utility room. They are virtually the same thing, and the latter actually has sources within the article. Waddles 🗩 🖉 20:49, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:48, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems clear to me that the nominator has neglected to do any sort of WP:BEFORE check and is nominating this solely because "it's sat in its current condition for pretty much a decade" which is not a valid deletion rationale. Whether or not other wikis have a page for an entry has zero bearing on if it is notable or not. I have a current GA that only exists on enwiki, that doesn't mean it fails notability! If not kept, a merge to utility room would not be terrible. Outright deletion would be stupid, this is a very common term in the United States. As for notability, there's a million articles out there, including many books that include the words "Laundry room" in their titles, but to name some specific examples of coverage, see [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. The assertion that laundry room "lacks notability" is hilariously incorrect, this obviously clears GNG by a landslide. The only real rationale here would be, again, a potential merge with utility room, but an argument can be made that a laundry room and a utility room are different topics, with the laundry room being primarily a North American topic. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:23, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Trainsandotherthings: Does it pass WP:NOT though? ––FormalDude talk 02:52, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Why wouldn't it? SportingFlyer T·C 16:54, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also like to mention that Laundry room is listed as a level 5 vital article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:30, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel like it probably isn't a vital topic. ––FormalDude talk 06:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with utility room. No need for two articles about essentially the same thing. Utility room is the more generic term. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:19, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/merge I'm not sure I'd favour a merge as I've never heard the term "utility room" before, at least not one where utility room would be the page we keep over laundry room. However merge discussions can take place elsewhere, and there's absolutely no reason to delete this. The idea it's non-notable is laughable - a quick scholar search shows research into laundry rooms and real estate which would be enough to pass GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 16:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. This article focuses on private homes. Many many apartment complexes and apartment buildings (especially in older urban areas) have Laundry#Shared laundry rooms, which is NOT the utility room. (https://mla-online.com/MLAOnline/Resources/Laundry_Room_Guide/MLAOnline/Laundry_Room_Guide.aspx?hkey=1cc449e8-788f-4cdc-9ae2-4e4cd97f0204) Interesting in NYC they're in the basement, in Rome, they're on the roof. It can be a cultural phenonmena. (https://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/the-rules-of-my-apartment-buildings-laundry-room).Djflem (talk) 06:59, 19 December 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. RL0919 (talk) 22:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Uzochukwu

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

This was the first revision of the article prior I removed all promotional material. The subject of the article is a Nigerian businessman / entrepreneur who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of him. A before search shows me user generated sources, some sources in reputable media but the byline reads “editor” which is indicative of a sponsored post, a before also shows press releases and mere announcements. For example see this a sponsored post, see this note the byline says “editor” indicative of a guest editor which invariably means it is sponsored. An untrained new page reviewer might not catch this, but this article is a blatant ADMASQ on a non notable businessman who is trying to get a Wikipedia presence. Celestina007 (talk) 20:09, 14 December 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) 20:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dorothy Malone (writer)

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

Fails WP:Author. Cookbook and advice column author with next to zero coverage. Per LOC, just one of many 'Prudence Penny' authors. Cause for no consensus in 2010 (nominated by page creator) was having ~50 copies of a cookbook being catalogued in WorldCat. Star Garnet (talk) 21:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The name disambiguation on this one is quite difficult. I located a profile of Malone published when How Mama Cooks was released. Some or all of her other works were released as "Prudence Penny" or "Elsie Barton". The LoC authority entry cites this article as a reason for associating the name "Dorothy Malone" with "Prudence Penny", and I don't see anything in VIAF that looks like Dorothy Malone, 1901–. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting soft-delete close per request.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:35, 14 December 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. RL0919 (talk) 22:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barely Blind

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

I am unable to find evidence they meet any elements of N:MUSIC. Star Mississippi 14:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:14, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable unsigned band. I would say they haven't been active for a decade, based on what little evidence I can find. But the only stuff online about them is Facebook and other primary sources. Unlikely to ever be notable. Fred Zepelin (talk) 18:25, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - My attempts to find sources turned up nothing as well-- Whpq (talk) 00:18, 21 December 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. Not convinced this subject meets our WP:GNG nor WP:NAUTHOR based on what I see in this discussion.

Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy new year! Missvain (talk) 00:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Anderson (Cal Scale)

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

(Too complicated for PROD). At first glance, this looks well cited, however the latter citations are more about his wife than him. This man existed and and did some amazing model railroad work (documented here, although not sure it's a reliable source). However I am unable to find evidence that he meets biographic notability. He died in 2000, but there should be something on line relative to his model railroad work, and I'm unable to find reference to it. Much of Trains magazine is his writing, but he doesn't appear to meet notability as an author. Thoughts? Star Mississippi 14:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • At this point, I'm going to have to say Weak delete. I just can't find enough references to support notability. I can't think of any good redirect targets, either. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:43, 21 December 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. Fails WP:GNG.

Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Newell Sparks

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

An individual that does not appear to pass the WP:GNG. His only claim to notability in the article is for a position that was uncredited. The only source being used is IMDB which, on top of not being a reliable source, also lists all but one of his positions as also being "uncredited". I searched for any additional sources using the names "Newell Sparks", "William Newell Sparks" and "William Sparks" and was unable to find any kind of reliable sources discussing the individual. Rorshacma (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Per nominator. Subject lacks notability and significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Meatsgains(talk) 17:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I did mange to find this on shotonwhat.com but looking at reliable sources discussions I'm empty handed for that source. Sorry Newell. Chumpih. (talk) 20:14, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete'. Wasn't even credited at the time. Verifying that he was the sound engineer is difficult and there is no significant coverage. Pikavoom (talk) 07:21, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Contrary to the seeming view of some, not everyone who worked in some way on the production of The Wizard of Oz is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:43, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It seems the article only exists to say he had an unaccredited production role on The Wizard of Oz which is not a justification for having an article as others have noted. The article makes no other claims of notability and I cannot see any evidence that there is material that could be added which would demonstrate notability, so I think this is a fairly clear cut case. Dunarc (talk) 21:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no sources to establish his role as the sound engineer in the film.Brayan ocaner (talk) 22:17, 16 December 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. Sandstein 17:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kono (character)

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

Trivial fictional character that doesn't meet WP:GNG. No reliable sources found. Avilich (talk) 17:18, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The only source currently being used in the article is a single issue of a comic book, and searching for actual information in reliable sources turns up nothing on this character. Even unreliable fan sources like fan wikis barely have anything on this particular character. I've said in the past that character list articles are not an automatic catch-all to shove unsourced material that is inappropriate to be kept on the encyclopedia, and this extremely minor character with zero information sourced to reliable sources is a prime example of one that should be deleted outright. Rorshacma (talk) 16:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more attempt to get consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – The Grid (talk) 21:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The only source is a Wikipedia article that doesn't mention this character. Vexations (talk) 15:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:51, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wael Elrifai

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

The article makes no claim of any significant impact the individual has had, and there are only passing mentions in reliable sources — failing BASIC. I cannot find any in-depth coverage of the book he co-authored, apart from a review from insideBIGDATA — does not meet NAUTHOR. — The Most Comfortable Chair 16:40, 14 December 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. Geschichte (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Wheals

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

A WP:BEFORE search returns a few WP:ROUTINE mentions in statistical databases and a few forum posts, but no significant coverage whatsoever. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 16:24, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - can't see how this meets WP:GNG. Chumpih. (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - I was also unable to find anything resembling substantial coverage. I was considering suggesting a redirect to his son's article Jay Wheals (which I have tidied up a bit) but that article probably should be deleted too. A7V2 (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete mentions that I can find are surface-level, not significant coverage. Brayan ocaner (talk) 23:29, 14 December 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. RL0919 (talk) 22:21, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cupcake Digital

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

Non-notable defunct minor company. No independent sources. This is not encyclopedic. Marquardtika (talk) 16:15, 14 December 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. I note that while participation each time has been low, five different editors (including nominators and commenters) in three AFDs have argued that this subject is not notable, and no one has argued that it is. RL0919 (talk) 22:04, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Summer Fusion Open Air

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

Soft delete, restored after request at WP:REFUND (courtesy @Muboshgu:, will manually notify IP). No issue with any of that. However, there is still no reliable source, independent coverage to establish notability. If it comes back in spring as per IP's note and if it garners coverage, it can be restored then. I would normally draftify, and not at all against that, but this seems contested so we're here. Star Mississippi 16:13, 14 December 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 List of Wonder Woman supporting characters. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sofia Constantinas

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

Trivial fictional character that doesn't meet WP:GNG. Was prodded twice, and deprodded each time with no actual explanation of why this article should stay. Avilich (talk) 15:33, 14 December 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. RL0919 (talk) 02:33, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KATV (Alaska)

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

Fails WP:NBROADCAST; just one sentence, just one source. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 15:22, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • [(recommendation for delete removed -page has been updated since.) per nominator. No evidence of notability or content origination. Chumpih. (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2021 (UTC), removed 22 Dec. ][reply]
  • Comment I mean, they have a facebook page. I don't see much about them, seems they've been around for 60 years. Oaktree b (talk) 03:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to be confused with the KATV in Arkansas. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:53, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a strange bird page, and the lack of sourcing on the topic does not help. (A local newspaper is sorely needed!) I improved KSA-TV, a related topic, and I think there is a notability case here for one reason: KA-TV (as it was sometimes written) was the first television station of any kind in Alaska, before broadcast stations were established in larger cities like Anchorage or Fairbanks. [8] Delays in building the first station in Anchorage meant that Ketchikan had TV a month before that city. Citations have been added. I lean keep on the "first in Alaska" claim. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:53, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep since the article has been improved significantly, and there looks now to be noteworthiness. (My prior suggestion above is superseded by this.) Chumpih. (talk) 14:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article creator has unilaterally redirected this article (and KSA-TV, which is not up for deletion) to the list of television stations in Alaska — notwithstanding that their only mention in that list contains none of the sources that had been in the article, and incorrectly implies they were over-the-air stations. Especially for this article (as this removed the AfD tag), this seems out of process… IMO, I'd have gone for a weak keep given its place in Alaska television history (and based solely on Sammi Brie's expansion — the "one sentence, one source" version, I would have gone for deletion), but under the circumstances perhaps we should ship it to draft space for now? --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:24, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:42, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I've undone the redirect, as this article is still being discussed here. Natg 19 (talk) 01:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Service existed before statehood gave full initiative to provide network service and stations across Alaska, and it was a cable pioneer setup 100% locally-programmed, so it passes for me on those two aspects. Nate • (chatter) 07:29, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Karikku. Daniel (talk) 04:30, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nikhil Prasad

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

Fails WP:GNG nothing more then outside his company. Behind the moors (talk) 15:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tell us exactly which point of WP:CREATIVE is matched and how? Behind the moors (talk) 08:25, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eevee01(talk) 11:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The photograph of Nikhil Prasad seems to have been made with the man's cooperation. I see that it was uploaded by Onmyway22, creator of the article. This makes me wonder if Onmyway22 might know Nikhil Prasad. -- Hoary (talk) 12:07, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It took days to contact him via LinkedIn. To get permission to use his image in Wikipedia to avoid copyright. I got an image and permission to use it as a free file. That's all. I believe that an article without an image is incomplete. You can check my previous image uploads I contribute images (by taking them directly that I can access) for articles that don't have an image. As I got a copyright message earlier, In his case, I tried to avoid copyright by not using his image from public sources. To conclude, this is not about a conflict of interest, It is all about my effort and time to create this. That is why I asked for help in TH. Please do not misunderstand. I am just waiting for other's votes to conclude. Onmyway22 talk 13:34, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment His only claim to fame is Karikku. Thera Para is a subset of Karikku and I can assure you it will not result in a keep if somebody nominates it for a deletion. He is not the first person to start a digital platform in Kerala, though he indeed is the founder of one of the more popular platforms. Probably a deletion or at best a redirect is in order. Jupitus Smart 18:13, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:44, 22 December 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rahil Abbas

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Yola (singer). Redirect

Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 17:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom Limb (band)

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

Article was created in 2008 with a "this band exists" vibe and has been flagged for better sources since 2010. From then until about 2019, their works were only visible in the typical streaming and social media services. It turns out that since 2019, one member has become far more notable on her own: Yola (singer). Now the band is occasionally mentioned in reliable media sources, but only ever as an early stop for Yola, and their works are still not gaining any notice in their own right. Meanwhile I plan to add some info about this band to Yola's article, and I think that will be sufficient. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard3120: I was thinking that if anyone votes "Merge", I have already done it so a simple redirect would work in that case. Policy would dictate whether the article title should be fully deleted, which I recommend but I wouldn't object to a simple redirect. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:42, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 15:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rashtriya Secular Majlis Party

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

The only claim of notability in this article is that they have a member in state parliament. However, looking at the sources used, the MLA himself, Nawsad Siddique is actually from the Indian Secular Front which is only loosely affiliated, ie. "on a ticket", "borrowed symbol" with this party. Even if he's actually from the party, there's not enough significant coverage to meet WP:ORGDEPTH. —twotwofourtysix(My talk page and contributions) 14:10, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Secular Front is not a registered party. There is no name of this party in Election Commission of India's New Party Seeking Registeration since 1 January 2021 see - https://eci.gov.in/files/category/352-new-parties-seeking-registration/
I think it is a Double-faced politics played in West Bengal. If is not seeking Registeration then how Abbas Siddiqui launched party for election? See - https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/pirzada-abbas-siddiqui-announces-indian-secular-front-isf-for-bengal-elections-2356170 and they also released there symbol without registration. See - https://www.indiatvnews.com/video/politics/pirzada-abbas-siddiqui-to-release-his-party-symbol-today-689141. If it is not registered then how Indian Secular Front article is live? The Wiki Mafiya (talk) 08:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: This is a Party registered in Election Commission of India. Hence the page should not be deleted. -Vijethnbharadwaj (talk) 10:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Does this political party meet WP:GNG and/or WP:NORG?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: ISF is a West Bengal-based political party whereas RSMP is a Bihar-based party. ISF contested the 2021 West Bengal Legislative Assembly election under the borrowed symbol of RSMP. They should not be merged as these are two different political parties. — Diptyajit (talk) 16:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a registered, unrecognized party; of which there are ~3k. The only coverage, even in local media has been about ISF borrowing their symbol. --Hemantha (talk) 11:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:48, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Movie Guys

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

This website or "entertainment and comedy brand" does not pass WP:GNG, WP:WEB, or WP:NCORP. I searched Google, Google News, Google News Archives, Google Books, Google Scholar, and Newspapers.com with combinations of "Movie Guys", "Paul Preston", "Adam Witt", "TMG Interview", and "Ford Fiesta" without finding any useful sources. Most of what I found were false positives and the rest were passing mentions. Of the current references, the Voyage LA and Shout Out LA sources are both WP:INTERVIEW content and therefore not secondary or independent. I'm also having a hard time figuring out who the author of these sources are or at least who did the interviewing and I'm unconvinced by the reliability of the sources. The Post-Journal sources is pretty clearly a WP:TRIVIALMENTION. The remaining sources currently being cited are primary, self-published, or promotional. I opened a WP:PROD, but Closedcap14 removed the tag with the comment "Added additional citations". I asked them to present sources to demonstrate notability on the talk page, but I had yet to receive a response so I decided to open an WP:AFD. TipsyElephant (talk) 13:41, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:52, 21 December 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) ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 02:35, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bald Move

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

This podcasting company does not pass WP:CORPDEPTH or even WP:GNG. The current references are all primary. I searched on Google, Google News, Google News Archive, Google Books, Google Scholar, and Newspapers.com using a combination of search parameters such as "Bald Move", "Podcast", "Podcasting", "Peter Street", "Jim Jones", and "Ron Hubbard". I found some WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of the company on Google and Google News, but they were all focused on the podcasts produced by the company rather than the company itself. The company does not WP:INHERIT notability from its shows, but even if it did I'm not entirely sure the shows are notable. Anne drew Andrew and Drew removed the WP:PROD tag with the comment that "I found a number of good sources on Google News", but neglected to add any references to the article. I also asked them to present sources on the talk page a few days ago, but I have yet to receive a response so I decided to take it to WP:AFD. TipsyElephant (talk) 13:17, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Keep because it's an influential podcast network that's had a decent amount of media coverage.[1][2][3][4][5][6] I don't like the argument that it's the individual podcasts that received coverage and therefore the company behind them isn't notable. The whole business model is that they create podcasts about whatever show is currently topical. It's like saying you can't establish notability for a TV show based on the notability of each of its seasons. – Anne drew 22:04, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Scribner, Herb (24 January 2020). "The debate over 'Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker' is an example of the culture war". Deseret News.
  2. ^ "Here Are Our Favorite Westworld Podcasts". Lifehacker.
  3. ^ "What's the Buzz: Mighty Ducks, Life on Mars? and More!". 25YL. 7 December 2019.
  4. ^ Mackrell, Daniel (16 April 2019). "The best Game Of Thrones podcasts to listen to during season 8". Metro.
  5. ^ Scribner, Herb (12 February 2020). "Will fans ever turn on the Marvel Cinematic Universe? An inside look at toxic fandom". Deseret News.
  6. ^ "Foundation S1E6: "Death and the Maiden"". 25YL. 22 October 2021.
  • Keep - I agree with Anne_drew and I too think, it's not necessary, each season has to have notability. Mommmyy (talk) 21:42, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in regards to Anne drew Andrew and Drew and Mommmyy arguments to keep. I don't believe the comparison is a fair one. TV series have different seasons and so do podcasts. I'm not claiming a podcast is non-notable even though individual seasons have received coverage in reliable sources. I'm claiming a company that produces podcasts is non-notable. I would argue that a company producing TV series can be non-notable while some of the shows they produce are notable (i.e. the shows received significant coverage without any mention or just passing mentions of the company). It's worth noting that the first sentence of WP:NCORP states "This page is to help determine whether an organization (commercial or otherwise), or any of its products and services, is a valid subject for a separate Wikipedia article dedicated solely to that organization, product, or service." which clearly differentiates between the company and its products. There is also a section of NCORP called WP:INHERITORG which states that "The organization or corporation itself must have been discussed in reliable independent sources for it to be considered notable" as opposed to significant coverage received by the products produced by the organization or corporation. Perhaps a separate Wikipedia page is appropriate for one of the podcasts rather than the company. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:45, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:46, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The Deseret News is reliable, mostly for local news. Still not sure the company is notable, the individual podcasts might be... Oaktree b (talk) 02:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:GNG with sources presented by Anne Drew. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 00:48, 22 December 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. Geschichte (talk) 11:20, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scientists Warning Europe

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

BEFORE yielded no significant coverage in reliable sources, outside of passing mentions about their letter (supported by only 20 scientists) in relation to COP26. It seems to fail NORG and GNG. — The Most Comfortable Chair 12:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:05, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The few quotes from the managing director in various articles do not constitute enough coverage to meet WP:NCORP. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unable to identify independent reliable sources or a merge target. Star Mississippi 02:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The only few sources from reliable outlets rely too much on self-publicity/PR of newsworthy events. More reliable sources are needed. Multi7001 (talk) 03:03, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Mengly Jandy Quach. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mengly J. Quach Foundation

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

No evidence of notability found. Redirect rejected by article creator: a redirect to Mengly J. Quach Education (which seems to be of limited notability as well) or to Mengly Jandy Quach seems to be warranted, but there isn't enough independent sourcing available here for a stand-alone article. Fram (talk) 10:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. With all due respect, Mengly J. Quach is one of the most notorious philanthropist in Cambodia, whose charitable works are channelled by his Foundation. Check out his Facebook page and his hundreds of thousands of followers if you havn't yet. Countries like Cambodia it is true struggle from a lack of secondary sources and online references. Our ESEAP (South East Asia Pacific) user group is doing it's best to tackel this issue. I am disappointed that as English Wikipedia strives for more inclusivity, smaller countries still struggle to find a place.Willuconquer (talk) 09:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Willuconquer: I believe you that this foundation may be important and notable in Cambodia. But as of right now, the sources in the article don't seem to demonstrate that. Do you know of any sources in Khmer which speak in-depth about the foundation? -- 07:22, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More sources are available in Khmer, thank you for enquiring.
I hope this helps. Willuconquer (talk) 10:01, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:58, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I tried in French, I can't find any. Oaktree b (talk) 13:26, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Using google translate on the links supplied by gave this and this. The former only mentions the education company as something founded, so that's passing and even though its in the Khmer article lede, perhaps this is not significant coverage. This latter one looks to be "Published Mengly J.Quach University Press", so arguably doesn't qualify. What would be WP:THREE? Chumpih. (talk) 21:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Mengly Jandy Quach. It doesn't seem the nominated article is a fit for English Wikipedia. Missvain (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:05, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with Missvain that a redirect to Mengly Jandy Quach seems to be the best option here. Quach is likely notable, but that doesn't mean that each of his charitable endeavors requires a separate article. In this case, this particular foundation doesn't seem to have received significant coverage from reliable sources. Redirecting to Quach's article, where the foundation is already mentioned, is a reasonable alternative to deletion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:23, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Missvain and ExtraordinaryWrit. Ingratis (talk) 01:12, 27 December 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Colonestarrice (talk) 15:23, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adolphson–Falk

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

Fails GNG and NMUSIC. The article has a single source which appears to not mention the subject at all. The only things I found on the internet, were a ticket sales site, several pages that trivially mention the subject, and a paywalled article that may provide significant coverage. But I'm afraid even if it does, that's just not enough; NMUSIC required "multiple, non-trivial, published works" and GNG "stipulates that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article".

According to the article's own lead, the band might satisfy a view NMUSIC criteria but I couldn't find any sources that back this up. Colonestarrice (talk) 12:32, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. I can't find any more sources now than before the move. Colonestarrice (talk) 14:40, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @EditorInTheRye and Oaktree b: can you please link to these sources or reference them on the article. Colonestarrice (talk) 14:39, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (with an admitted weakness) - Under the name Adolphson & Falk, a standard Google search in English brings up few useful results, probably because Google decided to give me (and everyone above) English only. However a search in Google News brings up a lot of hits in Swedish media, and here are just a few examples: [9], [10], [11], [12]. This shows me that they are well-known in their country, but I admit that I'm unsure of the reliability of some of those Swedish sources. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:05, 14 December 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. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 (HAPPY 2022) 16:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alembic Group

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

Fails WP:ORG Juggyevil (talk) 12:05, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep In the article there appear to be several seemingly-reputable sources that give significant coverage to the group. And it's diversified from the Pharmaceutical division, so there's some argument against merge. It's a 100-year-old company, WP:LISTED on both India's National Stock Exchange and the Bombay Stock Exchange, with over 300,000 employees in the group, has streets named after it. WP:THREE could perhaps be Financial Times, India Times and Divya Bhaskar (here via Google Translate). Chumpih. (talk) 22:36, 14 December 2021 (UTC) + 2021-12-27 08:50[reply]
  • Comment: Most of the sources cited are not reliable or just don't establish notability for their own page in the articlespace. Forbes India, TOI, and Business-Standard are good sources but more reliable sources would be better. Multi7001 (talk) 03:15, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Would Forbes India, TOI, and Business-Standard not be a satisfactory WP:THREE? Chumpih. (talk) 05:16, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Chumpih., the page you linked is an essay of a user talk page and not of the official Wiki guidelines. But I do understand that three may be sufficient for some, however, it depends on the quality of the sources. For example, TOI is a questionable source in terms of reliability, so an extra one may be more suitable. The Forbes and Business-Standard written by staff writers are good sources though, since those types of articles also appear in print. Wiki is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Multi7001 (talk) 23:03, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Multi7001. From here you can see that WP:THREE is not exactly an obscure standard, but you're absolutely right about the other points. Is there superior threshold or mechanism you can cite or recommend?
And re. Times of India, the consensus is that it's at its worst when pro-government bias takes over. In this case of reporting on a business group, why would you think that ToI's bias or unreliability would apply? Chumpih. (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The reference about TOI was just a broad example. More reliable sources would be better in this case, in my opinion. Multi7001 (talk) 00:04, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, that's a reasonable stance. Chumpih. (talk) 00:56, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and it is probably worth bearing in mind the difference between WP:NOTE and WP:NOTEWORTHY. For sure, a bigger number of more reliable sources is better, but here in AfD it seems that we deal with what we're handed. The citations needed to support statements within an article (per WP:PRIMARY and so on.) may not all be of the quality required to satisfy WP:NOTE. (WP:MEDRS etc. notwithstanding.) So I suspect we can tolerate a number of insignificant or less-reliable sources providing there are sufficient good ones to satisfy WP:GNG.
Genuinely, is there a better threshold than WP:THREE? Chumpih. (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep as per WP:LISTED. Better copyediting required on urgent basis or else it will soon head for WP:TNT. -Hatchens (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:46, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete [13] It's not independent news with missing author name. [14] This is the self published. [15] there is no analysis and news is given by PR agency with comments of spokesperson of the company. [16] It is just a profile link. [17] TOI is not considered much reliable also it is based on announmenet. [18] Again a directory link. [19] unreliable profile source. [20] clear promo, self published news. [21] not reliable again and based on announment with no analysis. Even the content is pure junk. Behind the moors (talk) 09:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Behind the moors: would [22] be acceptable as a source? It's from the No.1 newspaper in India, apparently. If it is acceptable, perhaps find a few more can be found. It would appear that 'Business-standard' is permissible. Given that, is [23] significant and reliable, etc.? Frankly, there's a big likelihood that there's some WP:GNG sources out there because it's WP:LISTED. Chumpih. (talk) 18:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sources you shared are not in-depth or independent about the company it is about the event. We need independent sources which is talking about company and analysising it, not an event. Behind the moors (talk) 12:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Behind the moors: According to WP:GNG: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. So when you say We need independent sources which is talking about company and analysising it, not an event, who are we and what is the documented requirement to be satisfied? And re. independence, the two sources are national newspapers; they're neither advertising, press releases autobiography nor the company's own website. Chumpih. (talk) 07:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please refer WP:ORG for organisation not WP:GNG. Just having a coverage in reliable/national paper doesn't mean they are independent. Read them, there is no analysis of journalist of them, only the comments of spokesperson. Behind the moors (talk) 12:12, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Both guidelines were read. And upon reading these, it would be clear to see that "[ WP:ORG ], generally, follow the general notability guidelines". The articles are independent of Alembic, indeed one is positively anti-Alembic, so which "spokesperson" are you referring to? The coverage is significant per definition. Where is this requirement for "analysis of journalist" coming from ? For the avoidance of doubt, these are not rhetorical questions. And once again, Alembic Group is WP:LISTED and over 100 years old, so it would be almost certain to be notable. Here's the Financial Times. Chumpih. (talk) 12:46, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:42, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel C. Woodruff Jr.

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

The article is just 1 paragraph that is basically a biography of what seems like a random person. Obviously fails WP:N. Philosophy2 (talk) 06:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:00, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'm not sure why he has an article to be honest. Oaktree b (talk) 13:30, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing even close to notability, and the sources are not even remotely close to showing he is notable. I have my doubts the park is notable, but donating land to create a park does not make one notable. Yes, in my own city of Detroit we have Palmer Park (Detroit) which comes in at 296 acres, and Thomas W. Palmer who donated the first 140 acres for the park has an article. However Palmer has an article firstly because he was a US Senator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:49, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lizzie Pitts Merrill Palmer who co-donated the land for Palmer Park with her husband, is more the level of the type of person who does in large part become notable for philanthropic donations. However her park donation was far larger than Woodruff's, and she donated to multiple others causes, set up institutions, and is included in a 1970s multi-volume biographical dictionary of American women. Even at that she seems to have been involved with the movement to extend the vote to women, although the article does not give us any clear indication of what positions she may have held in that movement.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:57, 14 December 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 23:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Big Baby Tape

Big Baby Tape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability, no sources. --Corwin of Amber (talk) 09:10, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:59, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 04:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Martins I. Imudia

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NBIO or otherwise demonstrate notability. No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources appears to exist - sourcing appears to be directory entries, books self-published via CreateSpace by the subject, and run-of-the-mill business rankings. firefly ( t · c ) 10:42, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:57, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - After my own investigation, the subject fails WP:GNG. Hopefully others can prove me wrong. Missvain (talk) 17:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 14:10, 22 December 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. Consensus among !votes grounded in policy is that Rudyi does not meet the standards for notability (yet?). If someone wants to work on this in draft space, just ping me. Star Mississippi 22:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Rudyi

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

I don't believe the subject passes GNG - the coverage is only abut him being assigned as a head of a commission (which I suppose is not a major governing body) and as a participant of sport competition. I don't think this is enough. Less Unless (talk) 11:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I suppose Ivan Rudyi is quite notable as he is the first chairman of the newly created Ukrainian Commission for Regulation of Gambling and Lotteries. He is also the captain of Ukrainian team of Invictus Games, and he also served in Russian-Ukrainian war as a platoon leader. There are really not so many sources about him, but his position is without a doubt significant. The article is short and only contains referenced checked facts. Nothing more. --IgorTurzh (talk) 14:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:56, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Non-notable; fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Sources provided give generally limited coverage. Curbon7 (talk) 22:12, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NSPORT as a captain of national Ukraine's team at international sporting event for wounded, injured and sick servicemen and women, both serving and veterans The Invictus Games. 195.200.245.23 (talk) 11:20, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Invictus Games does not lend itself to notability. SportingFlyer T·C 12:52, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I cannot find any sourcing that helps this subject pass WP:GNG for English Wikipedia at this time. Missvain (talk) 17:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because of his position as the head of a government agency.Jackattack1597 (talk) 20:00, 21 December 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. One editor found some coverage in one local newspaper, but most participants did not find this sufficient to establish notability. RL0919 (talk) 21:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jeanne Bowser

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

No indication of notability. I am unable to find significant discussion of this individual in multiple reliable sources. Acting career does not appear to be notable either. ... discospinster talk 01:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I tried and failed to find any decent coverage of this individual. Does not meet WP:GNG and notability isn't inherited. WCMemail 13:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - For what it's worth, here are the WP:THREE best sources I could find about her: [24][25][26]. It seems she popped up in newspapers from 2001-2007 (mainly 2004-2006), and after that, I can't really find her. Here are some passing mentions on her, in theatre reviews: [27][28][29], and one semi-interview/article with her and other cast members: [30]. - Whisperjanes (talk) 06:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The three sources provided by Whisperjames are good enough, IMO. NemesisAT (talk) 18:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:56, 14 December 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 Northwestern College (Iowa). (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DeValois Stadium

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

Generic campus athletic field does not show notability with substantive independent sources. Virtually every high school, junior high school, college, and in this case university with <2,000 students playing in NAIA has a field where they play football. Automatic notability for stadiums does not exist, as implied by deprodder. Reywas92Talk 01:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Multiple issues here: (1) Nominator is posting statements that are not true and this seems to be getting worse through several AFDs. I was the editor that de-prodded the article and stated Plenty of sources available online, just have to click the "google" link provided by Wikipedia. I'll add them over time. Generally colelge football stadiums are considered notable, see discussion at WP:CFBSTADIUM -- while I regret mis-spelling the word "college" it's clear I did not state nor imply any automatic notabily, only that discussion about why college stadiums are normally kept are listed for review. Feel free to validate the comments at Talk:DeValois Stadium and revision history of the article itself. (2) The comments about junior high schools and high schools do not apply and are a WP:STRAWMAN (that's not notable, therefore this one's not notable) (3) The comment about the school being an NAIA school is not a reason to delete. (4) The comment about the school being small violates WP:NOTBIGENOUGH. (5) The only argument that actually applies to AFD is the independent sources, and some quick research produced a large amount--I added a couple to show that the subject passes WP:GNG which fixes that issue. Therefore, the article is a clear keep as the standard has been met. It's my hope that the other comments are sipmly misunderstandings.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • One source says "The Red Raiders came into the contest ranked fifth nationally in passing offense, but struggled to find a rhythm at De Valois Stadium." and the other says "the Red Raider Athletic Band will host the first annual Red Raider Marching Clinic and Preview Show on Saturday, Sept. 11, at Korver Field in De Valois Stadium." The third is some random coach's blog, not a reliable source. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of GNG if you think this establishes notability. Reywas92Talk 16:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Northwestern College (Iowa), per WP:ATD. There is entirely insufficient content to justify a standalone article. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage – all I'm seeing are standard passing mentions that you would expect for any WP:MILL sports facility. wjematherplease leave a message... 13:50, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:07, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:39, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Northewestern College (Iowa) as it's not indepedendently notable. I did some digging beyond the sources above, and am not able to identify SIGNIFICANT, independent sourcing. Name / score drops are nowhere near enough. Star Mississippi 03:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Northwestern College (Iowa) per wjemather. This is the football stadium for an NAIA program (i.e, the lowest level of college football other than junior colleges). There is no presumption of notability (see Wikipedia talk:Notability#Sports venues) and thus DeValois Stadium would need to satisfy WP:GNG. Two of the sources cited in the article currently do rise to the level of WP:SIGCOV. The coaches' blog is published by the NAIA and thus is not independent. My searches also failed to turn up SIGCOV in reliable, independent sources. Cbl62 (talk) 15:56, 16 December 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 Nebraska Wesleyan University. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abel Stadium

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

Generic campus athletic field does not show notability with substantive independent sources. Virtually every high school, junior high school, college, and in this case university with 2,000 students playing in Division III has a field where they play football. Automatic notability for stadiums does not exist, as implied by deprodder. Reywas92Talk 01:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 02:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I did not imply that "automatic nomination" exists. At Talk:Abel Stadium please read that I provided a reason to de-prod as "established locations such as college football stadiums are widely considered notable. The article is a stub, but stubs are valid articles. Will add more sources and the article could be better, but PROD is not cleanup." And a reason does not have to be provided at all to de-prod.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "established locations such as college football stadiums are widely considered notable" has no basis in any notability guideline and is clearly a suggestion of automatic notability. What is widely considered notable is places with multiple independent sources of significant coverage, which are not present.
  • Keep Article is a stub, stubs are good. Meets WP:BASIC. WP:NOTBIGENOUGH is specifically listed as an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. Please do not confuse stub status with non-notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:46, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a statement based in any guideline and will be disregarded by any competent administrator. The issue is not that it is a stub, the issue is that there are zero independent significant sources. BASIC is the people guideline and irrelevant here. Reywas92Talk 03:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nominator is correct that I improperly applied WP:BASIC to a location and it should be retracted. I apologize for mis-applying the shortcut, I should have used WP:NBUILD. I'm starting to lose focus since it's late at night and the nominator has hit five seperate historic college football articles that I either originated or helped originate with AFDs.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, but are you now saying this passes NBUILD. If so, perhaps you could show us the "significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources" to support that claim. I'm certainly not finding any - the article found by Cbl62 (below) comes closest, but it's nowhere near enough. wjematherplease leave a message... 09:38, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is the football stadium for Nebraska Wesleyan, an NCAA Division III program. There is no presumption of notability (see Wikipedia talk:Notability#Sports venues) and thus Abel Stadium would need to satisfy WP:GNG. My searches did turn up some WP:SIGCOV in the Lincoln Journal Star. See, e.g., this and maybe this. Cbl62 (talk) 05:17, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Nebraska Wesleyan University, per WP:ATD. There is entirely insufficient content to justify a standalone article. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage – only the first of the two sources listed by Cbl62 (above) has sigcov, giing us a bit of history, but it's fairly light on details and on its own is not enough; the second source says almost nothing about the facility. Other than that, all I'm seeing are further standard passing mentions that you would expect for any WP:MILL sports facility. wjematherplease leave a message... 09:25, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:07, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge "stubs are good", but there's nowhere near the sourcing required to maintain this article, at any length. A merge to Nebraska Wesleyan makes complete sense as it's a piece of the school. Star Mississippi 03:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, I don't see any evidence of this field being notable enough on its own. The article has no substantive info and little chance of expansion, so would be better merged with its parent school. JonnyDKeen (talk) 14:01, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into parent article, per above. Not independently notable. Nigej (talk) 07:04, 21 December 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. No prejudice against restoring redirects to the main article if/once it leaves draftspace (which it hasn't, at present). czar 21:34, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 MotoGP eSports Championship

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

This individual season of the MotoGP eSport Championship is not notable. Normally I would redirect to the main article, but it has been (understandably) draftified. I can't find any independent sources that cover the individual seasons of this video game competition; all references are from the MotoGP website or its YouTube channel. I am also nominating the article on the previous season:

2020 MotoGP eSports Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Same story for the 2020 season: all sources are to the MotoGP website, no independent coverage. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 07:17, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:50, 22 December 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 11:43, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wingate, New Zealand

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

Proposed deletion from lack of notability. This is not a suburb as defined by Hutt City Council and it is unclear why this area is notable enough for a separate article, especially when the article has only one reference which does not appear to support the statements made in the article. HenryCrun15 (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:26, 14 December 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. I'm not convinced either way at this point. Please note, AfD is not a place for clean up. If there is a BLP violation please handle it through PROD or speedy.

Thanks everyone for participating. Unhappy with this decision? If one wishes to renominate this article with another policy-based rationale, they are able to do so. Happy holidays. Missvain (talk) 17:38, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Oscar of Prussia (born 1959)

Prince Oscar of Prussia (born 1959) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
Prince Oscar of Prussia (born 1959) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Oskar Prinz von Preußen (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No references for a BLP article Signed,Pichemist (Talk) 17:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is the Order of Merit of the Kingdom of Hungary, which looks like a notable award to me. --Kbabej (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As with similar orders in other countries, such as the Order of the British Empire and the Légion d'honneur, whether membership grants notability depends completely on what level the membership is. It's not the order that matters, but the rank. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why the discussion corelates to WP:GNG when the prime reason for WP:XFD is cause of the lack of references for a WP:BLP article. Signed,Pichemist (Talk) 16:47, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Kbabej. Could use some touching up, though. ~Junedude433(talk) 04:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neither LVZ article provides encyclopedic SIGCOV of the subject, and the first is just a refactored press release from Johanniter ("Johanniter announced this in a press release"). The second (which seems to be in the subsublocal section of "Altenburg/Volunteer work and royals") is giving a play-by-play of his visit/the event (the bulk of it is trivial details like "His Royal Highness has to record a reminder video with his smartphone"), complete with literal dialogue between him and a coordinator (my favorite is "“Anyone who plays samba cannot be a Nazi,” he says simply.") It's neither substantial coverage of him nor encyclopedic material in the first place. The Der Tagesspiegel piece is an interview of him, so cannot be used for notability considerations since it is not independent secondary coverage. JoelleJay (talk) 22:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Enough sources to satisfy WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Which ones are "enough to satisfy GNG"? How are the LVZ articles remotely substantial coverage of him? JoelleJay (talk) 04:30, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep agree as Kbabej said above, there is enough to meet WP:GNG. I've deleted many deposed monarchy crufts but this one is different. Thanks VocalIndia (talk) 10:01, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @VocalIndia: Like I asked of Necrothesp, which sources indicate he meets GNG? What encyclopedic, biographical information can be extracted from the second LVZ article? Attending a super-local non-notable event tied to his own organization is decidedly not Wikipedia-worthy material. And the DT article is an interview, which has long been considered unacceptable for meeting GNG because it is primary and not independent commentary on the subject. JoelleJay (talk) 03:50, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: JoelleJay's argument still hasn't been responded to or addressed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 06:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Kbabej. Looking at the articles the prince is the reason for the news coverage, if he wasn't notable the media wouldn't report on him. Had a quick look and also covered in Braunschweiger Zeitung [32], Die Welt [33]. Passes GNG but agree with other comments that the article needs improvement. - dwc lr (talk) 11:55, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    if he wasn't notable the media wouldn't report on him. Except the mere fact that someone "gets reported on" is not one of our notability criteria, and moreover, the media doesn't report on him with any degree of depth. Can you please explain how the LVZ(*) articles above, the un-bylined BZ blurb announcing Dr. Oskar Prince of Prussia spoke to readers about the Johanniter, the nobility in the 21st century and their great family role model and giving a bare-bones "bio", or the Die Welt announcement that has all of this to say about him: Oskar Prince of Prussia will succeed ex-Federal Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher, who died in the spring of 2016. The 59-year-old is Lord Master of the Order of St. John, as the festival organizers announced on Wednesday in Gardelegen. contain significant coverage? A handful of news reports providing the same routine biographical details and nothing else is neither evidence of SIGCOV nor of BASIC.
    (*)I should note that my earlier description of the longer LVZ article is really generous in how much coverage he receives. The only sentences that even obliquely mention him are:

    His Royal Highness Oskar Prince of Prussia himself paid a visit to the establishment of his order on Tuesday afternoon as part of a tour through Central Germany.
    And the acoustic and visual image that presents itself to him on the very royal, slow approach through Liebermannstrasse is a very special one: the samba group “Como vento” (Portuguese for “like the wind”) stands up in a multi-row formation the meadow opposite the facility and welcomes the Hohenzollern Prince with rhythms that defied the unusual cool July.
    Under the direction of Janek Rochner-Günther, responsible for street work in Altenburg-Nord and facility manager, the percussion enthusiasts carry both the prince and his companion with them. His Royal Highness has to record a reminder video with his smartphone.

    How is any of that encyclopedic? JoelleJay (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails to meet GNG due to insufficient coverage in independent sources, as JoelleJay, with characteristic diligence, has shown. The reports only show trivial details with no evidence of notability. Avilich (talk) 20:58, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The media coverage may be slight, but it isn't nonexistent; and the subject will be of note to anyone interested in European royalty and dynastic families. Ficaia (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Try familiarizing yourself with WP:SIGCOV. Avilich (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it all depends how you define "significant coverage". There are the two articles mentioned above about the subject's connection with the Order of St John, the oldest chivalric order in Europe. There is also this article about his media career.[1]. The subject belongs to an ancient dynastic family and holds an historic office. I don't think these are "trivial details". I think the information is significant and the 3 articles mentioned should be enough to save this article. Ficaia (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:59, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The real problem of JoelleJay is WP:IDONTLIKE, imv. VocalIndia (talk) 17:37, 22 December 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 01:50, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bhalchandra Kango

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

Previously declined. Still fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. DMySon (talk) 06:19, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:33, 21 December 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. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 14:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Huawei VR Glass

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

There is no indication that this particular product is important, much less that it would pass WP:GNG. If it were particularly important, then it could be covered at Huawei and the article could be redirected in accordance with WP:NPRODUCT. Otherwise, the article should be deleted as non-notable. — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:19, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. "华为VR Glass二代或本月发布，市场上还有它的位置吗？" [The second generation of Huawei VR Glass may be released this month. Does it have a place in the market?] (in Chinese). Sina Corporation. 2021-11-12. Archived from the original on 2021-12-05. Retrieved 2021-12-05.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "As for products such as Huawei's VR Glass, more of them occupy the market of light VR users who mainly watch movies. However, considering that the price of Huawei’s first-generation VR glasses is as high as 2,999 yuan (Oculus quest 2 is priced at $299), the second-generation VR glasses are likely to be sold at a price higher than this price, which is 2,000 yuan at home and abroad. Among price-priced all-in-one headsets, Huawei VR Glass is not outstanding in terms of cost performance. That is to say, but from the product level, Huawei is now holding votes in the VR industry at best. Even compared with domestic hardware manufacturers such as PICO, its market share is still at a disadvantage."

    2. "HUAWEI VR Glass体验：从此我拥有了随身IMAX影院" [HUAWEI VR Glass experience: Since then I have a portable IMAX theater] (in Chinese). Sina Corporation. 2019-12-13. Archived from the original on 2021-12-05. Retrieved 2021-12-05.

      The review notes from Google Translate: "Thanks to the split design, HUAWEI VR Glass gets rid of the battery and processor, and bid farewell to the heavy and inconvenient impression of traditional VR headsets. The weight of 166g will not feel tired even if worn for a long time. The breakthrough innovation in the optical display has greatly reduced the volume of the fuselage, and combined with the folding storage, the VR glasses can also be carried with you."

    3. 陈志杰, ed. (2021-11-17). "VR游戏套装、折叠屏手机、"口红"耳机……华为又上新了！这次又将引爆哪些风口？" (in Chinese). Sina Corporation. Archived from the original on 2021-12-05. Retrieved 2021-12-05.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "Compared with the previous generation of VR products, Huawei's VR Glass 6DoF game set adopts a new and upgraded 6DoF positioning interaction method. The resources cover a variety of boutique mobile VR games and thousands of PC VR games on the Steam platform, bringing an immersive gaming experience and realistic Visual screen. At the same time, the weight of only 188g is no burden to wear, and it also allows users to enjoy the fun of the virtual world in reality."

    4. "You can also watch big-screen movies at home, HUAWEI VR Glass experience" (in Chinese). Sina Corporation. 2020-06-12. Archived from the original on 2021-12-05. Retrieved 2021-12-05.

      The article notes: "The overall structure of HUAWEI VR Glass is very simple, with a VR glasses body, a handle, and a special connection for mobile phones. It can be perfectly integrated with popular models such as P40 series, P30 series, Mate 30 series, Mate 20 series, Mate XS, Mate X, etc. It only needs a simple connection to bring users into the world of VR. As mentioned earlier, because the entire field of view is covered by a huge screen, this experience can truly be called "immersion"."

    5. 余至浩 (2019-10-04). "AR‧VR雙周報第37期：AR眼鏡將有新選擇！臉書證實將推自有品牌AR眼鏡" [AR‧VR Bi-weekly Report No. 37: AR glasses will have new options! Facebook confirms that it will push its own brand AR glasses]. zh:IT之家 (in Chinese). Retrieved 2021-12-05.

      The article notes: "Huawei released a new virtual reality glasses called Huawei VR Glass on the 26th. This is also the company's third-generation VR glasses launched in 2016 and 2017. The appearance of the new generation of VR glasses is similar to sunglasses. Not only is the frame thinner, but the weight is also very light, only 166 grams. In addition, the lens on the glasses is equipped with two independent Fast LCD screens, which can provide up to 3K resolution images. And can support dynamic rendering technology to improve the screen image and reduce dizziness. Users can also adjust the wearing degree of AR glasses according to their own myopia degree."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Huawei VR Glass to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 08:55, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep appears to be significant scope for expansion as there are sources available, article should be expanded, not deleted. NemesisAT (talk) 17:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 06:18, 14 December 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. Fails WP:GNG. Nothing presented by the keeps, nor any sourcing in this debate, convinces me that this subject merits inclusion at this time.

Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 17:42, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

American Party of Labor

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

This article concerns a tiny political party, for which the only sources given are outlets directly affiliated with the party and two personal blogs. Searching for additional information, I was only able to find the party's official website, a facebook page with around 4,200 followers, a twitter account with 1497 followers, a student newspaper article from 2016 and a few mentions of the wikipedia article itself. Other than that, nothing.

It appears that the overwhelming majority of attention to this party comes from the wikipedia article itself rather than any actions taken by the party, with the page receiving an average of 2330 monthly pageviews in the past year

In light of all of this, I do not believe this meets notability guidelines.

Thereppy (talk) 23:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep For a small Communist/Hoxhaist party, its article is better sourced than those of similar organizations. I count five not affiliated with the party itself: [36][37][38][39][40]. EDIT: revising vote based on Unrequestedsillything's observations below. I failed to consider the APL's membership with the ICMLPO, which further establishes notability.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 01:12, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Of the five pieces you linked, a potential case for notability can made with the first article, which is a full length interview conducted by Evrensel Daily. This coverage is undoubtedly independent and significant, but reliability is harder to assess. The English language site does not give information on editorial standards (or even give the name of the interviewer(s)!), and as I can not read Turkish, I can't determine if this information is available on its parent site either. That said, if this wiki article is to be believed (I can't assess the reliability of the Turkish language source this table is based on), Evrensel's circulation within Turkey is substantial: Over 2% that of Turkey's largest daily newspaper, which is very impressive for a Marxist-Leninist newspaper in a country with negligible Marxist-Leninist political popularity or influence. If reliability can be established, it makes a solid case against deletion. However, the other four pieces linked definitely cannot be used to describe the American Party of Labor as notable. The Worker's World article (2nd link) does not offer significant coverage, listing it in a single sentence alongside several other groups as being involved in a small street protest (for which I could find no other news coverage). 'Fight Back! News' (3rd link) is an online newspaper, but I can find no mention of any editorial policies on the site, nor anything else to assess the reliability of its coverage. Either way, its coverage of the American Party of Labor is not significant, consisting of a one-sentence mention of the group as one of three groups that organized a counter-protest which, like the protest described in the Worker's World article, is apparently not reported on by any other sources. The Spanish-language source (4th link) is a translation of [this article] published by the American Party of Labor itself while the 'New Jersey Anti-War Agenda' (5th link) is a personal blog. Thereppy (talk) 22:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I was incorrect about the fourth source, but it appears even though it was originally published by the APL, it was subsequently translated and republished by a third party. So I believe my original point still stands: it is better sourced than other Wikipedia pages for smaller communist parties. At least one strong source with some weaker sources, along with their membership with the ICMLPO that Unrequestedsillything mentioned below, establishes notability IMO.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I've added a source from the National Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression, a fairly large national organization—the party in question signed the refounding document. Jpalameda1865 (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As C.J. Griffin has pointed out, it already has more independent sources than similar pages which have been deemed notable. Its official status with the ICMLPO, another notable organization, also helps here. Unrequestedsillything (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC) — Unrequestedsillything (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Comment Thank you for mentioning this. I have revised my vote accordingly.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Inherited notability isn't an argument. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 23:30, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per C.J. Griffin. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:34, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is adequately sourced. Deletion nomination seems frivolous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Visigoth500 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC) — Visigoth500 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion or finding of sources. Thereppy makes a good rebuttal of the sources, which have not been answered.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 06:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment How often is this going to be re-listed? The majority of comments are "Keep," and as has been noted several times, it is better sourced than other similar articles. Visigoth500 (talk) 17:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The keep !voters are making questionable non-policy based arguments. You can't just say "For a small Communist/Hoxhaist party, its article is better sourced than those of similar organizations."; that's blatantly WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. None of the sources CJ Griffin mentioned satisfy WP:SIRS. The first is an interview with one of the members by a fellow traveller; comprised mostly of the interview itself. This doesn't qualify as "completely independent" nor is it a secondary source. The second and third sources are single-sentence mentions. The fourth and fifth sources are fucking blogspot pages. It's shocking Visigoth500 accuses the nom of "frivolous" behaviour when the !voters here are ignoring policy to push what is essentially socialist fancruft/spam onto this encyclopedia.
Unrequestedsillything's argument is laughable. It's just a rehashing of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, that this article has "more sources" and should be kept. They ignore the garbage quality of said sources and then goes onto say that this organization inherits notability because it's a part of the larger organization. WP:NORG very explicitly says in WP:INHERITORG that organizations do not inherit notability from being part of or affiliated with a larger organization. Then the other two !votes are just "per nom" trash. I can see why this was relisted twice; the "keep" arguments are meme-tier and Thereppy is right. This party is non-notable.
I would ask the closing admin here to do what we always do for non-notable organizations whose fans show up to !vote keep while disregarding our notability policies. Close as "delete", because AfD is WP:NOTAVOTE. This tankie stalinist fanclub of an Albanian dictator is non-notable and should be treated as such, regardless of the stature of the people !voting keep. I'm going to go post this on WP:Wikiproject Politics to see if we can get some more people. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 23:48, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "This tankie fanclub of an Albanian dictator" -- Politically motivated bias Visigoth500 (talk) 00:20, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It should be firstly noted that "fellow travelers" are not against policy, especially considering in the interview it isn't the APL recursively reporting on itself, but rather an outside source doing so. In addition, I have also added a source documenting the actions of the party. Notably they don't even seem to be a "fellow traveler", or associated with the party after a cursory glance.AxderWraith Crimson (talk) 01:36, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, you're just ignoring SIRS, you're ignoring NORG, and you're ignoring pretty much all of our global consensus. The interview is not completely independent or a secondary source. You're deliberately ignoring our policies to push an obviously non notable fanclub onto this encyclopedia. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 17:06, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "fanclub" -- Again, you are demonstrating your own bias and prejudice. Perhaps this encyclopedia would benefit from less snide remarks and vulgar language ("fucking blogspot") and more professionalism. If you deem the article to not be notable, fine that is your right; but snark, attitude and vulgarity are not helpful.Visigoth500 (talk) 18:10, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A random Blogger/blogspot blog is not a reliable source. It's ludicrous that people are saying that it is. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources lists 21 different discussions in which editors have said that blogspot is generally unreliable as a WP:Self published source. Deeming it reliable here would be equivalent to just ignoring pretty much the endless discussions among editors for years that no, blogspot sources are not reliable and cannot be used to establish notability. It's illogical and flies in the face of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS.
    And yes, I'm calling this political party a fanclub. On a fundamental level, political parties are fan clubs of ideologies and ideologues. If we treat this entity like any other fan club (which we judge by quality sourcing regardless of how much turnout their fans provide) rather than discussing its political importance in the realm of communist parties, it becomes clear what needs to be done with this page. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 19:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You are quite correct that "whataboutism" is a not response to notability. The article must stand or fall on it's own merits. However, the question of "selective enforcement has been raised and is a valid concern. Visigoth500 (talk) 23:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Multiple new and indendent, notable sources with their own pages have been added to the sources with new information elucidating the activity of this party with again, its own independent source that in no way violates policy. As seen with the comments above, the repetitive motion to delete this page is politically motivated, not honestly founded in the desires to strengthen content on wikipedia. On those grounds alone, on top of the new sources, of their validity, there is no reason this idea of deletion should be at all entertained, once again.— Evann31 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 16:59, 15 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]
    • Comment This is the first (and thusfar only) contribution to Wikipedia made by this account. I struggle to believe this is anything but either canvassing or sockpuppetry. Thereppy (talk) 22:28, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Irrelevant. What matters are the sources, not who provides them.Visigoth500 (talk) 23:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Going to start an SPI. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 22:32, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please do. A brand new account making arguments identical (nearly verbatim) to a user in a heated deletion discussion sends off way too many alarm bells, especially when that user is so quick to defend the new account. Thereppy (talk) 23:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        @Thereppy: The checkuser at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Unrequestedsillything says that Unrequestedsillything, Evann31, AxderWraith Crimson are unrelated in terms of IPs, and there's not that much evidence aside from that. It'd be inappropriate at this post to continue discussing alleged socking here. I'm leaving this note here so it's clear what happened on SPI case given that the accusation was also made here. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 04:04, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Chess: I'm not concerned about either of those users, really just Visigoth500. Nothing strikes me as odd about the other accounts' behavior-just two people with similar interests and (per user profiles) similar ideological dispositions. (by the way Visigoth, I sincerely apologize if that isn't whats happening here. I hope you understand the reasons we are suspicious) Thereppy (talk) 09:49, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Here's a WP:SIRS table that examines every source currently included in the article. None of the sources currently satisfy WP:SIRS despite the WP:SPAs showing up in droves claiming that they do. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:49, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The daily Targum article clearly fits the criteria of " significant coverage in a reliable secondary source that is independent of the subject. "

In regard specifically to the daily Targum article; Significant: The entire article is about an event organized and operated by the American Party of Labor and its student wing. It is clearly significant coverage.

Reliable: The daily Targum has won the Columbia Scholastic Press Association's Gold Crown Award multiple times, it established a separate publishing company to ensure independent coverage from Rutgers. It also has its own wikipedia page. If ever a student newspaper is reliable it is now.

Secondary: While there are brief snippets and direct quotes from members, the author reports on the protest as well as giving additional context with regards to the Dakota Access pipeline in general as well as other protests regarding the pipeline. This is a secondary source with regards to the Party

Independent: The daily Targum has no association with the American party of labor nor does the author as far as I can tell. There is no reason to believe this journalism isn't independent of the American Party of Labor.AxderWraith Crimson (talk) 03:02, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You and Visigoth500 keep saying that the "All Marxist-Leninist Union" is the APL's "student wing", yet I'm not really seeing a source on that. It's not mentioned in any of the links you've posted and Binging for "All Marxist-Leninist Union rutgers" provides nothing. Even if it is true, it's not relevant since WP:INHERITORG says that entities do not "inherit" notability if a sub-entity or parent entity is notable. Even if the AMLU is notable due to coverage in that article (which I doubt it is), that does not mean that the APL is notable. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 03:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Chess
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Our history No Published by the party itself ~ A WP:Self published source, but affiliated with the party and so may qualify under WP:ABOUTSELF Yes ✘ No
"American Party of Labor (U.S.)" Yes No It's a self published blog that covers flags in the world Yes ✘ No
"Here in the very belly of imperialism, you have comrades:' Alfonso Casal, National Spokesperson for the American Party of Labor, spoke to Evrensel about the APL and the U.S. policies" No Not independent, is mostly an interview with a spokesperson for the party and the vast majority of the content is provided by the interviewee. Interviews are not considered to be independent sources. Additionally, per WP:NORG, "interviews with executives" are not considered secondary sources and do not satisfy WP:SIRS. ? Unsure of the reliability of Evrensel Yes ✘ No
The American Party of Labor Has Been Granted Observer Status in the International Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organizations No Not independent as it's published by the party newspaper ~ See WP:ABOUTSELF No WP:ROUTINE coverage of it joining a larger organization ✘ No
"Chicago protesters say ‘No’ to Greek fascists" Yes ? Highly biased source from within the movement No Mentions the American Party of Labor in a list of organizations that participated at this rally. No actual coverage of the party. ✘ No
"Chicago forum on U.S. role in Ukraine: fascists attempt disruption" Yes ? Highly biased source from within the movement No Briefly mentions a speaker's affiliation to the American Party of Labor. Single sentence. ✘ No
"Support grows for “Dump Trump” protest planned for day one of Republican National Convention" Yes ? Highly biased source from within the movement No Briefly mentions the party in a listing of attendees at the rally. ✘ No
"Communist group at Rutgers protests Standing Rock with Brower rally" Yes ? Student newspaper No Mentions the party in the first paragraph, but mostly covers the "All Marxists-Leninists Union" on campus. Final section covers a speaker affiliated with the party but not the party itself. ✘ No
  • Comment The All Marxist-Leninist Union IS the APL student wing at Rutgers.Visigoth500 (talk) 23:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"[PARTIDO ESTADOUNIDENSE DEL TRABAJO] El ascenso del neofascismo americano: Apuntes sobre la presidencia de Donald Trump." ? Unclear why "Partido Estadounidense del Trabajo" (which means "American Party of Labor") is bracketed. Perhaps the author is saying that is the source for the post? Site is the official blog of the Marxist–Leninist Communist Party of Ecuador, see: [41] That party belongs to the same umbrella org (ICMLPO (US) as the APL. No Self published blog. No Does not actually cover the party in the text of the blog post. ✘ No
"[PARTIDO ESTADOUNIDENSE DEL TRABAJO] El legado de Karl Marx en la revitalización del movimiento obrero estadounidense" ? Unclear why "Partido Estadounidense del Trabajo" (which means "American Party of Labor") is bracketed. Same issue as previous source. Appears to be the same self published blog as the previous and has the same issues of affiliation No Self published blog. ? Dead link ✘ No
"Revolution is the Solution: Presentation of the American Party of Labor to the 23rd Seminar on the Problems of the Revolution in Latin America" No Party newspaper of the APL ~ Possibly under WP:ABOUTSELF No Doesn't actually cover the party itself ✘ No
"Booker on Blast: Hands Off Venezuela" Yes No Some random person's blog. Is obviously a WP:Self published source. No Briefly mentions a person affiliated with the party and does not cover the party in a significant manner. ✘ No
https://naarpr.org/updates/call-to-refound/ "Call to Refound the National Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression"] ~ Petition signed by the APL No It's a WP:Self published source and isn't reliable since it isn't published by the APL value not understood The extent of the sources coverage of the APL is that the APL signed this petition. ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
  • Comment Now there are accusations of sock puppetry, I created this account specifically to challenge the baseless and desperate attempts to repress this party and the desperation, beyond hiding behind subjectivity of "notability" of direct and independent sources, they now accuse the multitude of opponents, Axder Wraith, Unrequestedsillythings and myself, who knows who else of not even existing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evann31 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Evann31, You probably aren't doing yourself any favors by admitting to creating a new account for the sole purpose of challenging others arguments in one particular topic. That's the definition of WP:SPA. Chess makes a very convincing argument in this case, and though I'm not voting in this regard, you'd be better off just providing your rebuttal of Chess's argument. Just my viewpoint, take it for what it's worth. Spf121188 (talk) 17:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply A "particular topic" so repetitively brought up on flimsy and subjective bases. A topic founded in political motivation and not in ethics or "rules". It stands that the charges of sockpuppetry further prove the desperation of the handful of editors who are grasping at straws to save their subjective arguments of "notability" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evann31 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Most of the references are not independent or notable. It won't pass WP:GNG However, I would like to thank User:Chess for his thorough work on the references. Mommmyy (talk) 20:01, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I am going to vote, and vote to delete. Chess has a masterful argument for this based on their thorough table assessing validity/reliability of articles. It simply doesn't pass WP:GNG. in reply to Evann31, you're still not helping yourself. Spf121188 (talk) 20:14, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Just doesn't pass the test. GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the detailed source assessment. No evidence of notability (t · c) buidhe 04:27, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the source assessment, and thanks to Chess for putting it together. ― Tartan357 Talk 00:46, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- If the article could be provided with sources, it might be kept to show that it is insignificant. These left wing groups are prone to splintering. I was looking at articles on white supremacist groups with a few hundred members and these had articles, so why not these neo-Marxist ones. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:01, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Visigoth500, I understand your point, but if there are other articles out there that shouldn't be, nominate them for deletion and discuss there. It doesn't have bearing over this decision. Spf121188 (talk) 13:54, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it makes you feel better I'm going to go around and nominate other non notable communist parties for deletion. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 03:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Chess, Just can't resist the snark, eh? Well, good luck on your crusade to save "our encyclopedia" from "socialist fancruft/spam" Translation -- From mentioning the existence of somehting you don't like.Visigoth500 (talk) 15:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Visigoth500, You won't do any favors for yourself or the article with those kinds of remarks. Spf121188 (talk) 16:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Spf121188, Not asking for any favors. I thought that articles stand or fall on their own merit, not on what comments are made here. Interesting that Chess' "fucking blogspots," "Tankie fanclub," saving "our encyclopedia" from "socialist fancruft/spam," and "If it makes you feel better I'm going to go around and nominate other non notable communist parties for deletion" gets a pass; but calling them out for vulgarity, snark, and unprofessionalism elicits your disapproval. Visigoth500 (talk) 16:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Visigoth500, My disapproval carries zero weight. Chess took the time to analyze every source provided, and gave a very well worded argument in regards to the articles merits, and created a table for everyone to easily understand. I understand that this is a passion-filled topic, but Chess' comments notwithstanding, they at least took the time and effort to make an argument based on merit. Spf121188 (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Visigoth500: I spend much time PRODing and AfDing or rejecting at AfC other kinds of fancruft, like miscellaneous student clubs, dream SMP micronations, or most recently non notable subparts of universities. Generally within a certain topic there's often quite a lot of accumulation of articles of questionable notability as time goes on and nobody notices. This seems to be what is happening here. Fans of a topic come on and create articles that don't have good sourcing on non notable topics. When something is fancruft, it's fancruft. That seems to be what's happened with communist parties. What's shocking to me is that I didn't see how it's possible to honestly see blogspot blogs as reliable sources. It's the prototypical example of a self published source.
Since you were raised the question about "selective enforcement" given that there are other communist parties in existence that are less notable and still have articles, I've gone ahead and answered by nominating others for deletion. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 17:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Far-right microparties get a lot more mainstream attention due to their memberships' tendency to accumulate criminal convictions. Infamy will get you a wikipedia article just as easily as fame. --RaiderAspect (talk) 07:12, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Spf121188. Wasn't aware of that policy. I guess what I mean is that having a page on this topic, even if only a stub, means that people looking for information on left parties will find something of use, and future editors can build on it if it becomes more notable, and the sources, while not particularly strong, are mostly reliable for reporting on niche left topics, so I am not convinced of a need to purge the article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:57, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Bobfrombrockley, I can understand that viewpoint, and that's a well-reasoned argument. IMO, a re-direct like you mentioned above may actually make it easier for people looking for information, especially being all in one place. An admin or closer will determine if the article stands, whether or not the nomination was made in good faith. Spf121188 (talk) 17:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Bobfrombrockley said: "...and the sources, while not particularly strong, are mostly reliable for reporting on niche left topics..." A google books search found some sources that mention the party and its newspaper/blog: [42] [43] [44]. These seem reliable enough. I'll leave it to other editors as to whether or not these should be incorporated into the article.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:33, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
None of those sources satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH. In fact, ORGDEPTH explicitly says that "quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources" aren't WP:SIGCOV. The first two hyperlinked sources are just quotes from the Red Phoenix. The third source is a list of communist parties in America. ORGDEPTH explicitly says that "inclusion in lists of similar organizations" does not satisfy the significant coverage requirements. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 19:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bobfrombrockley and Spf121188: Just pointing out that WP:HARMLESS is not Wikipedia policy, as stated at the top of that essay. CentreLeftRight ✉ 08:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, it is not a ‘’policy’’, just an argument that should generally be avoided for rationale to keep/delete on its own. Spf121188 (talk) 09:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Chess's excellent source analysis showcases that the party has not yet gained the necessary media coverage to pass WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:29, 21 December 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 06:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pop cumbia

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

No reliable sources talk about this as a genre. The cited sources don't support the preceding statements. The word "pop" doesn't even appear in the CMTV source, and the El Diario source only says that the cumbia under discussion has electronic elements making two bands more popular. I looked hard for more sources and found nothing. Binksternet (talk) 06:10, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Pyro Studios. Per User:Czar (thanks for already mentioning them there).

Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy new year! Missvain (talk) 00:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gonzo Suárez

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

I think that the subject doesn't match notability criteria Alexcalamaro (talk) 05:45, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:36, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jebel Ali Village

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

It's not a town, but a housing development. They're almost never notable. promotional refs, part of a promotional campaign for the copany's projects DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Bungle (talk • contribs) 09:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vishnu Govind

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Some minor coverage. Minor award. scope_creepTalk 19:35, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Kerala state film award is the official award by the Government of Kerala, India for the best work from state. Its not a minor award. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.46.113.185 (talk) 15:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please show me the other coverage for this BLP. scope_creepTalk 15:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:03, 14 December 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. RL0919 (talk) 15:10, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Backup4all

Backup4all (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable software. I was going to prod the article, but it was already deleted that way previously and by speedy deletion after that. SL93 (talk) 19:03, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 19:03, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the PROD and speedy where in 2006 and 2007 respectively, so cannot really be relevant in 2021. Looking at this, while I have never heard about it myself, there are some reviews from various sources over a period spanning from around 2014, such as Softpedia, PC World and Techradar as a recommended or suggested solution. I can't say if this qualifies the notability guidelines or not, though they're independent, third-party reviews over a period of time. Bungle (talk • contribs) 19:40, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The softpedia article includes download links and a license key deal for Backup4all Lite, so I would not consider it independent. The techradar link is a brief, incidental mention at the end of the article, not a thorough review.Dialectric (talk) 15:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not suggesting this satisfies any notability criteria, hence a comment and not a !vote. I happen to think on balance the article may not have sufficient in-depth secondary sources, but it doesn't harm to discuss what is found, relevant or not. What I posted is by no means exhaustive. Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:20, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I've found references from Tech Radar, ghacks, and many other tech magazines about this software through Google search. It seems like a good backup software. Mommmyy (talk) 20:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mommmyy: The techradar link is the exact same one I posted above and the other link has nothing to do with backup4all. Are you sure you meant that one? I remain on the fence regarding notability though. A number of reasonable length, independent reviews would be useful. Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bungle:, I mistaken Ghack as a tech magazine and found it is a blog. Sorry for that. But what about PCWorld? It seems to be a good reference. I can see that you've recommended this one too. I don't know if Capterra is trustworthy or not. I would like to leave it up to your' consideration. Mommmyy (talk) 22:38, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add one more thing. I found another source from Tech Radar. Please check. Mommmyy (talk) 22:46, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:03, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Of all the sources posted, only the PC World one seems to be a completely independent reliable source with significant coverage, which is not enough to meet WP:GNG. Further attempts at finding quality sources came up empty. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep There are two independent sources that talk about this software in some detail. It just squeaks by the notability requirements. 80.247.89.52 (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Backup software is very very common software and it would need to quite special to get an article. I don't see why it is notable. scope_creepTalk 20:58, 18 December 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 01:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revolt Motors

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:NPOV and WP:SIGCOV and in the current form is full of puffery; WP:PUFF; which we can easily deduce by looking at these texts - 1:"The Revolt bikes were the first electric motorcycles to find mass appeal in India", 2: "The fan base of the company are known as Revolters.", 3: "While Revolt is so far the only electric motorcycle brand to have gained traction in India". Also, we should consider this point: Revolt Motors is a sub-entity of RattanIndia, the wiki of which has been recently deleted (via AfD) because of the possible involvement of senior management staff in the creation and updation of the Wikipedia pages; WP:COI/WP:UPE. Overall, it seems to be a part of a coordinated effort by the same group/team. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 03:37, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  • Hi Hatchens
In future, could I tentatively suggest that it might be an idea to engage in a little bit of background research before casting aspersions such as '...overall, it seems to be a part of a coordinated effort by the same group/team.?'
I've been editing on Wikipedia for a very long time. If you look at my extensive edit history, it is pretty obvious that I have nothing to do with RattanIndia, I am not Indian, and indeed, I've never even been to the country. I didn't know anything about RattanIndia until they bought a stake in Revolt Motors earlier this year.
If you did a bit of digging, you'd notice I have created three Wiki articles within the past month: Revolt Motors, Super Soco, Vmoto. What do they have in common?
All three are electric motorcycle companies... which, not coincidently, happens to be one of my chief areas of interest.
Please note, that I have no problem with someone marking a page that I create as 'nominated for deletion'. It is part of the process.
But if you are going to cast aspersions about the motives of editors, it would be polite to first do a little bit of homework, and at least check if the accusations might hold any water. Inchiquin (talk) 05:38, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The company looks notable based on the page's references. All that's needed is a bit of a cleanup. Waddles 🗩 🖉 17:59, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is some coverage but not sufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH. It's also kind of rare for three old companies to become notable. Exceptions are always there of course. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... an 'old company'? It looks like you haven't done your homework, Nomadicghumakkad. The company was founded in 2017. Inchiquin (talk) 22:29, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content

I don't think it is particualrly difficult to find in-depth articles on Revolt Motors, however, for the benefit of the time-poor, here is a feature article on the company from a credible website: "Revolt Motors RV 400: All you need to know" by Siddharth Chauhan, published on Tech Radar on 18 June, 2019. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inchiquin (talk • contribs) 23:13, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Inchiquin: Please don't add random headers like this, it breaks the AfD log page. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄)
Sorry about that, I didn't realise.Inchiquin (talk) 04:54, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:13, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Answering to creator's question - "If you did a bit of digging, you'd notice I have created three Wiki articles within the past month: Revolt Motors, Super Soco, Vmoto. What do they have in common?" - all three are connected; Revolt Motors sells re-badged Super Soco electric bikes in India and Vmoto is the primary distributor of same Super Soco electric bikes in Australia. I recommend, Kindly declare WP:COI at your user page. -Hatchens (talk) 03:04, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
Hatchens, the allegations you are throwing around are unfounded. I do find it curious that you have not mentioned Super Soco in your comment above. I don't know if you are aware of this, but Super Soco and Vmoto are currently in competition with one another. Need I comment further?
Please note you have previously alleged that I was paid by RattanIndia, you are now suggesting that I am paid by Vmoto or Super Soco. I have created these articles partly because they are significant organisations, but mostly because I am interested in electric motorcycles. Please note that AGF is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia.
Yes, I do like Super Soco bikes, that is the 'common thread' as to why I created these articles. However, I don't just like Super Soco bikes. I also like those of Fonzi Electric and Stealth, as well as European companies such as the Spanish electric motorcycle company Silence, and innovative e-bike companies, such as the French start-up Teebike. Unfortunately, these organisations are not significant enough to warrant articles on Wikipedia, which is why I have focused my efforts on Super Soco, Revolt and Vmoto.
I might note that both the articles on Super Soco and Revolt Motors have sections which discuss the main competitors, such as Ola Electric, Askoll, and Niu Technologies, including links to the pages. The articles are obviously not written as puff pieces, and I think most viewers of the pages agree.
Your comment about WP:COI was not posted in good faith, as you are well aware. Inchiquin (talk) 04:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are contradicting your edits. Now, how come - "Super Soco and Vmoto are currently in competition with one another"? - so who added this partnership statement https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vmoto&diff=1059540130&oldid=1059520623 at Vmoto's page? Take your time to think and then comment. In the meanwhile, let me help you out further; Proof of Super Soco and Vmoto collaboration/partnership - ; https://www.motoroids.com/news/could-this-turn-out-to-be-revolts-next-electric-motorcycle/ and Proof of Revolt Motors selling re-badged Super Soco electric bikes in India; https://www.motorbeam.com/revolt-rv-400-clone-is-super-soco-chinese-bike/. Also, your involvement at RattanIndia AfD has been duly noted. You're requested to declare WP:COI (voluntarily) at your user page or the talk pages of Revolt Motors, Super Soco, and Vmoto. -Hatchens (talk) 07:58, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Hatchens.
To begin with, I feel obliged to point out that it is poor practice to quote edits, throwing them around in arguments as if to imply that they are evidence of the viewpoint of an editor.
They are no such thing. Edits on Wikipedia always should be referenced, and thus an edit should be reflective of the views of the sources, not the editor.
Secondly, I would suggest you need to be very cautious about how you interpret sources you find on the internet in relation to Super Soco. The relationship between Vmoto and Super Soco is extremely confusing, and most writers don't understand it. The relationship between Revolt Motors and Vmoto/Super Soco is even more cryptic.
For this reason, I am quite sceptical about your claims about there being a relationship between Revolt Motors and Vmoto/Super Soco. I don't doubt that there are sources that claim there is a relationship between the companies, but whether the writers of the pieces (such as the one you quoted above) are right or not, is another matter. Personally, I have never come across any solid evidence of a relationship between Super Soco and Revolt, although it is hard to ignore the similarity of the look of the Super Soco/Revolt bikes, hence the speculation you find on various websites, as noted above.
These companies are very hard to understand. I refer you to my comments on the Vmoto page of 7/12/21.
...Alright, allow me a minute or two, and I'll explain the thought processes underlying the creation of this article, and this should shed some light onto the question of meeting the criteria of notability.
A few weeks ago I created the article on Super Soco, a popular brand of electric motorcycle. At the corporate level, the Super Soco brand is controlled by a number entities with a somewhat Delphic relationship, which is not particularly easy to untangle. So when I booted the article on Super Soco, I opted to focus on the brand, side-stepping the thorny question of which group was in control of the brand.
After creating the Super Soco article, I started to unpick the details, and I realised that the approach that I took on the page was probably wrong...
So, yes... in some regards you are right. What I stated in my previous post didn't marry with many of my edits in the post. That's because I didn't fully understand the company structure when I first posted the 'Super Soco' article, and I still don't entirely understand what is going on. (While I'm on the topic, I might note that the comment you quoted ' Vmoto Soco also became the exclusive manufacturer of the Super Soco motorcycle range' was taken from the website that is referenced directly after the comment. It isn't my opinion, and thus I am not contradicting myself. That is the point of sources on Wikipedia.)
By the way let me show you something that seems rather important in relation to your line of argument, though you don't seem to be aware of.
It is a press release by Super Soco on the 1st of December:
SHANGHAI, Dec. 1, 2021 /PRNewswire/ -- The world's largest motorcycle trade expo EICMA, ended on November 28 in Milan, Italy. During the event, SUPERSOCO, a world-renowned and recognized electric motorcycle brand, discovered that a company exhibited, without permission, many of SUPERSOCO's best-selling models in violation of its exclusive appearance patents and intellectual property rights, such as CPX/TC MAX/CU/VS1, and utilized the SUPERSOCO brand and some of its models for media communications. | see article
So, what do you think is going on there?. That doesn't sound very chummy. Now, I should note that Vmoto were at that event - as noted in the article of the same name- so it is pretty clear that the statement was directed at Vmoto.
Which illustrates that, what was stated in my post above is correct: Vmoto and Super Soco are competitors. The notion that you are suggesting, that these companies are in some kind of parent-child relationship, is not factually accurate. They are not subsidiaries, on the contrary, they seem to be engaged in an ugly turf-war.
I might note also, all the evidence indicates that Revolt Motors and Vmoto are likewise independent companies that are competitors, Revolt Motors is not a subsidiary of either Super Soco or Vmoto, as you seem to suggest.
In summary, your arguments around WP:COI don't hold up. The three companies are independent entities, they are not subsidiaries of each other, as you keep suggesting, and writing about the three companies is not a conflict of interest, no more than so than an editor who happens to write about two or more motorcycle or car companies.
In future, I would suggest you need to be very careful about evaluating source material. I don't understand these companies entirely, and you don't either, so please don't make allegations that an editor has got a conflict of interest etc, etc if you haven't got a good grasp of a complicated subject. Inchiquin (talk) 13:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let's hold the horses and wait for others' assessment. -Hatchens (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I note the creating editor's comment that significant coverage is easy to find. Per WP:HEY I suggest they both find it and use it to enhance the article. The coverage there at present is, in the main, churnalism. It has not been proven to pass WP:NCORP. Ping me when the referencing is significantly improved and I will revisit my opinion FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 10:12, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. They're either a couple of lines with no in-depth information or regurgitated announcements. I have been unable to find any references that meet NCORP criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 12:35, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — the wall of text isn’t helpful neither does it do any good, to roughly paraphrase one of Phil Bridger quotes, if you need that many words to prove something is notable then it is probably indicative of the inverse. Celestina007 (talk) 17:57, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:25, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

St. Hilda's Church, Georgeville

St. Hilda's Church, Georgeville (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCHURCH. All I could find is coverage for St Hilda's Churches elsewhere in the world. LibStar (talk) 03:24, 14 December 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 DigiPen Institute of Technology. Selectively. Sandstein 17:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Claude Comair

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

This article was written primarily by Supadude888, who has edited primarily this article and the DigiPen Institute of Technology, the organisation ran by the subject of this article (their only other edits appear to be on the subject of mountain climbing); and the anonymous ip 198.244.110.191 (a Seattle area IP address) who has also only edited DigiPen, Claude Comair & mounting climbing articles, and so is likely just Supadude logged out. I don't want to go all Sherlock here but Supadude is also the contributor of the picture of Claude, which he uploaded as 'own work', so its extremely likely Supadude is Comair or works for Comair.

The article almost exclusively references DigiPen's own website, the website of DigiPen's research arm, a MobyGames page (which is a user generated wiki and fails the definition of a reliable source), as well as a very brief mention in an article from 2013 about Nintendo Software Technology. The BBC article referenced is nothing to do with him, but a timeline of Lebanese history.

A Google News search turns up very few results (an article on his son where he is mentioned in passing, an article collating covid PR releases from Seattle area businesses, and an Ars Technica article which is just quoting him once).

The article falls back on listing patents, which as WP:PATENTS notes is a fairly common way to puff up a self promotional article.

Therefore I generally see that it fails the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability. JTdaleTalk~ 02:49, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Oh boy, this is a tough one. He seems notable but the sources used are garbage. We'd need to strip this article down and start over again. Oaktree b (talk) 05:29, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:45, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:45, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:46, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:46, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment He is not going to pass academic notability, I am not thinking the institution he is over fits the "significant" and "accredited" terms that need to be met to make an academic leader notable. However, if he gets enough indepdent coverage he may be notable. We seem not to have much here, but sometimes that happens because people go for low hanging easy self references, instead of digging up 3rd party coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:00, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The google books are turning up some mentions such as this [45] which appears to be an indepdent source, I am not sure how it works on reliable. It is also more about the place he heads and its opening a new campus.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to DigiPen Institute of Technology. A look at the google books search sources suggests to me there are multiple references to his institution. Although the one that changed my mind was this [46] which is a test prep quesiton name dropping him and his institution. I am not sure that is a GNG building source at all. Still, the one I listed above is a slightly better reference, but more on the institution than Comair. Overall I think merger is the best way forward.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:36, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:21, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – The Grid (talk) 21:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the absence of other good solutions, merge and rd what's salvageable (not much, if any) to DigiPen. This is a pretty obvious puff/selfpromo piece so it's hard to see through it to the potential notability underneath. There's a lot of corporate fluff too at the DigiPen article, to be clear. At any rate, any future independent article for Comair will have to start from scratch. There's too much taint and self-promo in this one. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:50, 30 December 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. Fails WP:NTOUR.

Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy new year! Missvain (talk) 00:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All the Light Above It Too World Tour

All the Light Above It Too World Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tours become notable if they meet WP:NTOUR, which at the very least requires coverage of the tour as a tour--not just dates and times and opening acts and concert halls and ticket sales and what not. The least important part of such an article, from the point of view of notability, are those details; there is nothing here that discusses the relevant aspects of a concert tour. Drmies (talk) 00:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This concert tour has clearly met the guidlines for WP:NTOUR, the tour was ranked as a top grossing concert tour of 2017, and clearly has many accolades as well as performers. This page has also been up for years with no problem. It should not be deleted Bigpickleman9999912 (talk) 00:16, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pollstar' is a trade publication, not an independent source. And "a top grossing concert"--that Pollstar article lists it at no. 30. That it's been up for years means nothing. Drmies (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but improve the article’s sourcing. At first glance, this article looked ok, but then I noticed that a lot of the references used a are not independent of the subject. A lot of them link directly to the website of the artist in question. WikiJoeB (talk) 03:08, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sourcing is bad, so what is the reason to keep it? Drmies (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: suffers from the usual problem of Wikipedia articles about tours, in that it's mostly just a list of dates, which fails WP:NTOUR, and a set list from Setlist.fm, which fails WP:USERG. However, this one at least has some sourced references to Billboard Boxoffice and Pollstar, and the attendance and box office takings could probably be sourced from Billboard, so it could be improved. 95% of Wikipedia articles about tours are even worse than this one. Richard3120 (talk) 18:38, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:33, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:20, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete there's some small, boilerplate stuff, but I'm not seeing the stuff of notability. It's not notable as a tour. A little about how the concert is eco-friendly, but not much else. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 04:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with Richard3120: just a list of dates that fails WP:NTOUR. Fred Zepelin (talk) 03:49, 25 December 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 01:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Filip Misolic

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

non-notable tennis player who fails to meet WP:NTENNIS and WP:GNG Adamtt9 (talk) 01:34, 14 December 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 03:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, there's loads of tennis players at his ranking level and age, and most of them never end up becoming notable. Iffy★Chat -- 09:42, 21 December 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 03:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Pili Hernandez

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

First off its an orphan article, so its already a bad sign. Secondly, apart from hanging a banner saying "RESIST" near the White House along with other 6 activists, Nancy doesn't have any other notable event, as evidence of that, all of the references (except the ones regarding the banner) are either from her Linkedln profile, local newspapers and organizations and a episode from a small podcast.

About the banner, there's 6 references from 5 different newspapers, the only significant being the Los Angeles Times, and all the 6 news reports just briefly mention her name. Additionally the occurrence that brought her some media attention doesn't even have its own article. SadAttorney613 (talk) 01:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 December 14. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 01:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:23, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:23, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete would seem to be a bit-player in the activist activities. Oaktree b (talk) 05:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: alas. I was hoping someone would turn up something that would establish her notability, but no one has. The one piece in the Smithsonian can't hold up the whole thing. -- asilvering (talk) 19:54, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the current news sources are not significant and I could not find any other info in Google. Caphadouk (talk) 19:56, 20 December 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 with no prejudice to re-nomination for deletion if the subject would like to expand on their rationale. Daniel (talk) 01:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Finn Hartstein

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

This is a procedural nomination started by the article's subject, per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. I am neutral. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-03 ✍️ create
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:46, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep his wins make him notable. Nothing slanderous about the article and the photo is an "action shot" of him. Oaktree b (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment @Ritchie333: if this is per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE then please can the details of the actual request be given? Chumpih. (talk) 07:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Chumpih, See here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks Ritchie333. Suspect the next step should be to get someone to attest that this is a valid request. Let's see what we can do. Chumpih. (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Had no joy via an email to an Oversighter. The oversighter indicated that it's not possible to infer user identiy from the IP address alone. So without some other validation, I don't see how we can treat this request as legitimate. I'm unsure how to proceed. Chumpih. (talk) 12:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - we don't actually know that the request is from the article's subject . I would urge caution in deleting it. This request may be from a hostile source so any judgment should be solely based on standard notability assessments.  Velella  Velella Talk   16:44, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree that this could be risky. @Velella: if some Admin or similar were to attest that this is a legitimate request, would you be satisfied with the deletion? Chumpih. (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would rate this article as marginally notable but its loss would not be significant for Wikipedia or the sport. If this is a genuine request, I would judge that we should defer to the subject's own wish.  Velella  Velella Talk   21:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable as a world championship silver medalist and European championship gold medalist. The IP could be anyone. If it is the subject, then the only "sensitive data" there is the date of birth, which could easily be removed. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now - As someone who requested my own article to be deleted, I sympathize. However, I also requested it myself and presented why I wanted it deleted. Thankfully, the community agreed and it was deleted. At this point, we have no clue why he wants it deleted. He is clearly a notable person who qualifies for an article and as other have stated, there is nothing weird or worrisome about the article from a reader perspective. But, for now, I do not know why he wants this article deleted, so until then, I say keep. Very open minded in the future if the community is provided more insight. Missvain (talk) 04:47, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Like Missvain, I had to request deletion of an article about me. In this case, we do not have sufficient information to conclude that this request is either genuine or well-founded. Cullen328 (talk) 01:54, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, unless it can be verified that the request is genuine then it should be kept. Suonii180 (talk) 00:21, 28 December 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. Withdrawn by nom with no opposition. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Society for the Study of Social Problems

Society for the Study of Social Problems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NORG, total lack of secondary coverage. Article appears to have been created and extensively edited by someone associated with the org. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw / Keep per sources found to support notability. COI issue has been resolved. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alexbrn, that is an incorrect assertion. The guidelines state: "so long as no one has yet responded to your comment, it's accepted and common practice that you may continue to edit your remarks for a short while to correct mistakes." There was an edit made to increase clarification and prevent misinterpretation of the comment, as no one had commented on it yet. With regards to the sources, it has been marked for deletion by another user for a reason; I could not confirm whether the sources were both independent and reliable to the subject and contained SIGCOV. In some cases, low-level organizations with no media presence tend to have press releases published in academic journals and subscription databases as articles. I am skeptical that just these three academic articles are the subject's only indication of notability, as notable organizations that meet WP:GNG and WP:NORG tend to have multiple articles in mass media outlets, of which there is no presence in the media, from what I saw - in addition to mentions on academic journals. That is just my opinion, as all users are subject to their own opinion, respectfully. Multi7001 (talk) 20:25, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More sources were added after my nom was posted. I redacted the deletion nom but will decide to stay impartial given that some of the content in the sources cannot be accessed in full due to a paywall. Multi7001 (talk) 22:50, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Whatever problems the current article has, this looks like a viable topic with decent (if difficult-to-find/get) secondary sources available, e.g.
  • A Dictionary of Sociology (OUP)[48]
  • RS published accounts from the (ex-) president.[49]
  • Historial overview from 1976.[50]
Alexbrn (talk) 10:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alexbrn, here is an example of what I was referring to: [51]. Sometimes, academic publications tend to mask subtle mentions or entire articles in their print/online publications as genuine coverage, but it is actually PR paid for by the subject. Sometimes disclosed, and other times not; similar to editorial newsrooms and companies wanting intricate PR. As you can see, the publisher is the University of California Press, and this one, compared to others that don't follow this process, discloses the following: "University of California Press on behalf of the Society for the Study of Social Problems." Organizations that do this are usually the ones with no media presence and a lack of notability, but with direct access to editorial tools within the academic publications. Multi7001 (talk) 20:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What has that source got to do with this article? You said there were "no reliable sources"[52] But now they've emerged, such as this, then that statement is incorrect. Will you respond to new evidence or double down? There are more sources of course (did you look?) Alexbrn (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just enough independent sources.Rathfelder (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Another (quite critical) source is:
→ Leedham CS, Eitzen DS (1994). "Advocacy and the SSSP: An Analysis of Research Articles in Social Problems". American Sociologist. 25 (Fall): 66–73.
This cites several other sources on the Society, which I shall try and track down. There's quite a bit of (older) stuff out there. Alexbrn (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sourcing such articles is always difficult, as anyone who tried knows: even the Modern Language Association suffers from a dearth of secondary sourcing, but there is no denying that within its area it's the most important organization there is. Anyway, it seems to me that Alexbrn has done enough to prove this outfit deserves an article, though the article has a clear COI origin (and I'm going to block Tomhoodster, who did not participate in the COIN discussion and hasn't responded to messages, from editing the article) and needs some hard work. BTW funny--my office used to be in the same building. McClung Tower might deserve a Brutalist article. Drmies (talk) 21:19, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hah, didn't realise this was at COIN. That'll learn me to take anything off my watchlist, be it ever-so-tedious. Alexbrn (talk) 21:35, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alexbrn, I don't use my watchlist at all, but the obvious COI flavor of the article made me look for the main editor in the history, and thus their talk page, and so I found User:MB's notification. It's the old rabbit hole--but with an administrative edict at the end. Drmies (talk) 00:03, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: In addition to the sources that have already been provided, I found it straightforward to find independent sources describing this organization in at least some depth just by paging through google scholar results for "Society for the Study of Social Problems". - Astrophobe (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Astrophobe, if it really was so easy for you, please improve the article--you seem to have the skills and the information, and I'd appreciate your efforts. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:04, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Drmies: thanks for the suggestion, but I've barely even had time to look at my watchlist recently. The existence of sources is the criterion by which articles are judged at AfD per WP:NEXIST, and actually fixing an article is much harder than just assessing whether or not an article subject meets notability criteria. There's a place for SODOIT but it's not relevant to my !vote. But if the issue is actually that you doubt that I saw sources then please do say so and I'll be happy to go back and find them, I just thought plastering this AfD with more sources wasn't really relevant after several have been supplied above. But I'll add this article to my mental list of pages to come back to, and please feel free to follow up any time at my talk page. - Astrophobe (talk) 01:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • User:Astrophobe, I hear you. I know it's easier to prove notability than to write decent articles--one wishes that these COI editors would acquaint themselves with our guidelines and would take us seriously. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:22, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It can be hard to document an organization like this, because sources about them get lost among the sources published by them. But we seem to have crossed that bar. XOR'easter (talk) 14:32, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It was me that initially suggested on WP:COI/N that the article didn't provide independent sourcing to demonstrate 'notability', but I think what has been found since is sufficient now to meet the criteria, and to write a better article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:20, 19 December 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 03:13, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Terrence Oved

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, references are all passing mentions and a WP:BEFORE search shows up much the same + standard PR profiles. Also has WP:COI issues, and was previously deleted after discussion. Melcous (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:58, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

International Association of Space Activities Participants

International Association of Space Activities Participants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An empty article. There is no evidence of significance. One link to the official website of the organization.--Владимир Бежкрабчжян (talk) 06:41, 14 December 2021 (UTC)--[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Second Before...

A Second Before... (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Russian / Ukrainian TV series with no real coverage in reliable sources.--Владимир Бежкрабчжян (talk) 11:23, 14 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_December_14&oldid=1060320970"