Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 December 18

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< December 17	December 19 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HiSoft Systems

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

No independent coverage. Was a business from 1980 to 2001, now a consulting brand for one of the founders. Multiple other software businesses of this name make searches difficult. Based on the article, Maxon Computer GmbH could be a redirect target, but that article doesn't (and needn't) mention this company. User:力百 (alt of power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:14, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. User:力百 (alt of power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:14, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. User:力百 (alt of power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:14, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Products like HiSoft Basic are notable (however, there is not a stand-alone article yet, only mention in List of BASIC dialects), so we are without a clear redirect target. Pavlor (talk) 08:39, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I remember them being a notable company in the UK in the 80s and 90s. There's plenty of news articles if you search through the ZX Spectrum, Amiga and Atari ST etc magazine archives on the Internet Archive, for example a three page company profile in Amiga Computing https://archive.org/details/AmigaComputingIssue094XMas95/page/n31/mode/1up Piecesofuk (talk) 16:12, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was unable to find more in-depth coverage of the company, and I did notice there are Australian and Chinese companies with the same name. Piecesofuk, can you please add more reliable sources about the company to this discussion? Thanks, Heartmusic678 (talk) 11:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It might be worth trying a search on Archive.org, with additional terms like the founder David Link: https://archive.org/search.php?query=hisoft%20%22David%20Link%22&sin=TXT or Amiga https://archive.org/search.php?query=hisoft%20Amiga&sin=TXT or ZX Spectrum https://archive.org/search.php?query=hisoft%20%22ZX%20Spectrum%22&sin=TXT or Atari https://archive.org/search.php?query=hisoft%20Atari&sin=TXT you'll find a mixture of adverts and product reviews. When I did the David Link search the first hit was for the company profile linked above. The Centre for Computing History has a list of some of their products which might also be useful for some searches http://www.computinghistory.org.uk/pages/49753/site-search/?q=hisoft&x=0&y=0 I did a search on the British Newspaper Archive but it doesn't really cover the 1980s or 1990s, the only thing I found was a review of one of their products with the company being described as "one of the most respected software houses in the home computer field" Piecesofuk (talk) 13:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Piecesofuk: Thank you. There are a great number of search results to go through, and I personally can't comb through all of them to find ones that pass WP:SIGCOV for the company. Based on the search results you provided, I share Pavlor's concern that the products may be more notable than the company itself. (Advertisements do not warrant product notability, and product reviews must meet WP:PRODUCTREV). If multiple reliable independent sources about the company itself do not exist, the products' notability is not enough to keep the company's page in existence. If anyone has time to pinpoint in-depth coverage of the company from reliable sources, please share what you find. Heartmusic678 (talk) 11:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from this company profile (mentioned above) https://archive.org/details/AmigaComputingIssue094XMas95/page/n31/mode/1up I can find plenty of product reviews in eg British magazines https://archive.org/details/cuamiga-magazine-072/page/n64/mode/1up US magazines https://archive.org/details/Antics_AMIGA_Plus_Volume_1_Number_1_1989-05_Antic_Publishing_US/page/n18/mode/1up French magazines https://archive.org/details/st-magazine-080/page/n33/mode/1up It's difficult tracking down news items using archive.org's search, but here's one https://archive.org/details/Atari_ST_User_Issue_088_1993-06_Europress_GB/page/n6/mode/1up where Hisoft are referred to as a "Top Developer" and the one from the British Newspaper Archive I mentioned above which refers to Hisoft as "one of the most respected software houses in the home computer field" in the Liverpool Echo on 9th November 1985 https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000271/19851109/050/0006 Piecesofuk (talk) 13:18, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Piecesofuk. Unfortunately, product reviews are irrelevant in the discussion to keep/delete this company page. The BNA does not permit open access without creating an account, and brief mentions of the company are not enough to pass WP:SIGCOV. The purpose of meeting WP:SIGCOV is to allow Wikipedians to write a whole article about a subject, per WP:WHYN, and if we cannot prove there is in-depth coverage about the company (not the software) to do so, the Wikipedia article about the company has to be deleted. My vote is Delete unless WP:SIGCOV can be proven for the company alone, not its products. Heartmusic678 (talk) 15:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in the absence of better evidence of notability. Caleb Stanford (talk) 06:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:42, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:29, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there appears to be difficulty sourcing much on-line info from the 1980s, but we should consider British Newspaper Archive per Piecesofuk's research. There are thousands of references in Archive.org and beyond, although it is a struggle to identify stuff that passes WP:SIRS from there. HiSoft adverts typically contain blurb about the company, and this tends to crowd out hits on more analytical pieces. The journalistic style of the time would typically not dwell on the organisations much, despite the significance of the products, so analytical pieces would be few. These issues mean that evidence may be difficult to compile. Chumpih ^t 04:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In my opinion, the profile contained in the Amiga Computing magazine coupled with the mentions of the importance of this company's products in their own specialist fields and the fact that the age of this company means we must take WP:NEXIST into account pushes the topic company over the line. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:37, 5 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. Daniel (talk) 04:02, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Umuhoza

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

Can't see that sources are good enough to establish notability TheLongTone (talk) 14:08, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominated 11 minutes after creation; no WP:BEFORE effort listed. Jclemens (talk) 03:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Au contraire, sweetiepie. I looked up the sources and had a nose around. I've AfD's articles in a shorter time after their creation, incidentally.TheLongTone (talk) 13:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TheLongTone: Referring to another editor in an intimate manner is not appropriate for an encyclopedic discussion. Please remove that portion of your reply. BD2412 T 00:34, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands for being promotional. I will watchlist this discussion to see if any actual claims to notability surface. Geschichte (talk) 10:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Did my due diligence. I can't find multiple reliable secondary sources that cover the subject in a significant way. This article features her and her business partner but the article is about the business, not specifically Umuhoza. Perhaps in the future! Missvain (talk) 23:03, 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 no consensus verging on keep. Daniel (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slimka

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

Promotional borderline G11 eligible article on a non notable rapper who doesn’t meet any criterion from WP:MUSICBIO and in general sorely lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of him thus a major GNG fail as well. Celestina007 (talk) 17:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article shouldn't be deleted as Slimka meets the second notability requirement, he had an album on the Swiss Hitparade (main musics sales chart in Swizterland) in the top 50 (twice.) https://hitparade.ch/song/Slimka-feat.-Makala-&-Varnish-La-Piscine/Dynastie-1830849 Kamikaze0617 (talk) 13:06, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Pardon me, I think overall the fundamental problem is failure to understand this portion of WP:NM which states “...meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. I am afraid a single criterion met which isn’t an SNG wouldn’t triumph over WP:GNG. If you can show me any two reliable sources not even WP:THREE, just two that discuses the subject of our discussion with in-depth significant coverage I’d be more than satisfied because a google before literally shows me nothing cogent. Celestina007 (talk) 18:25, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Coverage looks to be mostly in French (not surprising for a Swiss rapper). Radio Télévision Suisse article, 20 Minuten article, Mouv' article are three articles of many found through a google news search. -- Whpq (talk) 03:06, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:03, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Whpq with three reliable sources. --hroest 15:18, 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 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.

(Applying a level of IAR here, given the AfD which kept it was 7 years ago.) Daniel (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Annapurna High School

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

Fails WP:ORG; I can't find any significant coverage or other indication of notability of this school. Unsourced. (Previously kept in the era when high schools were presumed to be inherently notable, more recently included in a trainwreck). Lennart97 (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found this[1] article that mentions the school, but it’s only a passing mention in a source of unknown reliability. Other than that, there are the usual list sites [2], social pages [3], and of course Wikipedia forks. Interestingly, the user who created the page only has one edit, which is to this page. [4] Jobie James (talk) 21:08, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The school hit by the earthquake in Nepal is a different school with the same name, as the school under consideration here is in India :) Lennart97 (talk) 12:47, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:59, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:02, 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.