Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 December 21

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 力百 (talk | contribs) at 17:05, 21 December 2021 (Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Performance problem (organizational development).). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< December 20 December 22 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:57, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Performance problem (organizational development)

Performance problem (organizational development) (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)

Unsourced for 15 years - this is basically just a DICTDEF. User:力百 (alt of power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:05, 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 no consensus. Lack of participation after multiple relists. The nominator's own neutral stance makes even a soft deletion seem inappropriate. RL0919 (talk) 00:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Video Volunteers

Video Volunteers (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've declined a WP:G11 request as I'm not convinced this is purely advertising. However, this certainly isn't appropriate for Wikipedia in its current state, and I'm not convinced it's salvageable. Procedural nomination, so I abstain. (Note that there's some highly questionable BLP content in here. Normally I'd remove it, but in this case I'll leave it in situ during the AfD as it could theoretically impact on the notability of the topic.)  ‑ Iridescent 17:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:13, 6 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 merge to Biorepository. Merge away...

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) 00:22, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Biological Resource Center

Biological Resource Center (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)

Can't find any coverage indicating that this is a notable topic Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This term seems to cover what are more commonly known as gene banks and genomic databases. The jargon is too obscure for this to be the page title if the article is kept. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Merge, see below. - as written the article is only sourced to the OECD definition, which is really vague. You have to sort through all the University of X Biological Resource Centers, and the handful of bio departments that seem to have given this name to their study help/tutoring service/office hours, but there are some sources that discuss the concept under this name, often about genomics or microbiology collections - for example [1], [2], [3], [4]. Search results also overlap with a company called the Biological Resource Center which apparently got in some trouble a couple of years ago for misusing human remains, and which may itself be notable. (Even better, the owner of the human-remains company was apparently called Stephen Gore.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"The Biological Resource Centre" that got into trouble for misusing human remains is not the subject of this article. The other references you link are effectively covering gene banks, which we already have an article for. A redirect to gene bank seems appropriate. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, okay: "...which may itself, also, separately, be notable, as the topic of another, different article" :)
This is broader than just gene banks - culture collections are for sure included, and the first article I linked uses a broad enough definition to include a 16th-century herbarium. I notice we also have biorepository, though, which does seem to be essentially the same subject (see [5], [6]), so I'd say merge there. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 00:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into biorepository. They have essentially the same scope, cover the same facilities, and biorepository has more and better citations/structure. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 13:26, 26 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Flanagan (tennis)

Michael Flanagan (tennis) (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)

Not notable as a tennis player and definitely not notable as a financial analyst. His ATP page shows that he never cracked the top 700 in singles or top 400 in doubles and earned only 4K$ in career prize money. He fared a bit better as a junior and college player but nothing that generates the kind of in-depth coverage necessary to pass WP:GNG. Pichpich (talk) 16:54, 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. Nothing presented in this discussion convinces me this subject meets WP:GNG nor WP:NACADEMIC.

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) 00:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yatsuhiro Nakagawa

Yatsuhiro Nakagawa (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)

Delete The article about this person in jawiki has been deleted cause the lack of notability. Se also [7] and [8].--Harada Daisuke (talk) 01:14, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KeepNo Position - assuming the article is correct that they hold the position of "Distinguished Professor," that is a pass under WP:PROF. Changed based on discussion below. PianoDan (talk) 18:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tsukuba University automatically give the position of "Distinguished Professor" for safely retired professor. See the article 94 of this [9]. For that reason, Tsukuba University is turning out in great numbers of "Distinguished Professor." This person have not noticeable academic achievements.--Harada Daisuke (talk) 22:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - I don't seem to be able to cut and paste that into Google Translate, and I don't speak Japanese. Are you saying that in this case "distinguished professor" is the equivalent of "emeritus professor" at western universities? PianoDan (talk) 23:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't know in detail about "emeritus professor" at western universities. But in Japan, the position of "Distinguished Professor" is surely given for retired professors in very many universities. "Distinguished Professor" is almost completely careless position in Japan.--Harada Daisuke (talk) 23:49, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
「名誉教授」in Japan, see this [10].--Harada Daisuke (talk) 00:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice Removed unreliable description that "He once served as a science and technology deputy under Prime Minister Noboru Takeshita." Noboru Takeshita cabinet was established in November 1987. But Nakagawa had been became an associate Professor at Tsukuba University in 1980 [11]. This is biography by Nakagawa himself, and there isn't any source that "He once served as a science and technology deputy" in Japanese.--Harada Daisuke (talk) 03:52, 23 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 00:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

J. Ingo

J. Ingo (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)

Notability concerns. This is technically a BIO1E - the only attestation is that one obscure sonnet was written by a person of this name. User:力百 (alt of power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:52, 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 delete. ✗plicit 04:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Detroit Will Breathe

Detroit Will Breathe (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)

Alleged to be an entirely promotional article (CSD G11), but in the interest of transparency I'm electing to go with AFD rather than CSD in this matter. Posting here for community input. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:24, 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 keep. Going with the keeps to allow for them to improve, expand and grow this article with the "exhaustive" citations that supposedly exist.

Also, in the future, please keep it civil in deletion discussions.

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. I will defer to other administrators to review it. I will not re-review my decision. Happy holidays. Missvain (talk) 00:28, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Makhtumkala

Makhtumkala (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)

Not finding anything (legal recognition or GNG) to establish notability aside from the single travel guide entry that's cited. Coordinates may be off, since there doesn't seem to be a village at this location. –dlthewave ☎ 03:29, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TrangaBellam, I'm confused by your "stop wasting my time" comment. If you created an article based on a single travel guide source, then surely you either had sufficient sourcing on hand to establish notability (3 reliable sources is a general rule of thumb) or planned to add it in the near future. How is anyone wasting your time by asking you to do something that you were going to do anyway? Were you expecting others to do this work for you? –dlthewave ☎ 17:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further,

    МАГТЫМГАЛА - [..] Кака районында магтымларың яшаян обасы, гала [..]
    — Атаныязов, Солтанша (1970). Туркменистаның географик атларынын душундиришли сѳзлуги [Toponym Dictionary of Turkmenistan]. Ashgabat: Turkmenistan Academy of Sciences. p. 201.

    and

    In West Kopetdagh in the 1970s, leopards were spotted in [..] next to the village of Makhtumkala in the Sumbar Valley (June 1976, one adult) [..]
    — Rustamov, Anver K.; Sopyev, Ovez (1994). Fet, Victor; Atamuradov, Khabibulla I. (eds.). Vertebrates in the Red Data Book of Turkmenistan. Monographiae Biologicae. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. p. 208. doi:10.1007/978-94-011-1116-4_13. ISBN 978-94-011-1116-4. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)

    TrangaBellam (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment TrangaBellam, ill-feeling could be avoided if you'd incubated this article in draft-space until after you'd finished listing the offline sources. It is reasonable for someone to bring it here if they consider it inadequately supported, and if they cannot find sources themselves, even if there are political reasons why those sources are hard to find. I'd therefore suggest draftifying until you and/or others have completed the work. Elemimele (talk) 10:50, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • and if they cannot find sources themselves - WP:CIR. The editor has been nominating tens of articles from different geographical regions in the belief that they violate GEOLAND - it is impossible that someone will be competent enough to ascertain legal status of territories in so many countries and such a bull-in-the-chinashop approach is only indicative of hubris. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:06, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - TrangaBellam has identified only passing mentions of the location. What is required for a WP:GEOLAND#1 pass is evidence of legal recognition, but no evidence of that is provided here. Similarly a pass under WP:GNG requires significant coverage in multiple sources, but again there is no such evidence provided here.
There seems to be a misunderstanding here that any populated place is notable: this is not the case. Wikipedia is not a gazetteer, it does not include articles on localities with no legal recognition and about which no encyclopaedic article can be written. The entire point of what we are trying to achieve here is that we are supposed to be writing encyclopaedia articles, not directory listings. FOARP (talk) 19:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I had linked to a pdf about legally recognized places. Did you read that or do you expect me to read it for you? Maybe, teach you Turkmen language? You wish to claim that the Government of Turkmenistan is ignorant about its own villages when it describes the settlement and the mausoleum in five paragraphs? Or, that the Turkmenistan Academy of Sciences is similarly ignorant? Wow. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:35, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wow indeed. You posted a 404 link (to openstreetmap.org . . . ). Maybe lessons in HTML and Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources are called for? Or since the Turkmenistan govt website does not mention the topic of the article by name at all, a lesson in reading? And since this is a government website pitched to tourists, a lesson in what an independent source actually is? Followed by a lesson in how to discuss things on the internet? FOARP (talk) 20:26, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Does this link work for you? Since you have some inability in reading English, let me quote the passage:

Modest mausoleum called by native people as Magtym – mayazem stands alone in the Sumbar river valley near Magtymgala settlement. In translation from Arabic, “mahdum” (magsym) means “master” and “myaezem” means “great”. The mausoleum was built in honour of holy patron of magtyms, whose name occupies seventy-eight position in the chain from Adam where Prophet Mohammed is on forty-nine place. People used to call him Mahzum Agzam or Imam Agzam as it was forbidden to say own name of powerful and respected representative of Sufi clergy.

However, it is known that he was born in Gorgan two hundred years after Mongolian invasion and was not only Sufi by birth but also passed judgement for 10 years while being ruler of his velayat in the interfluve of Atrek and Gorgan rivers. The Holy man died in XV century and was buried at place of mausoleum, the legend says that white camel carrying the corpse of deceased has stopped and laid down there, much probably, following his will to inter him in certain place. Close disciples and associates of Magtym Myaezem considered stop of camel as a sign.

There were three attempts to build mausoleum on top of the grave but all of them ended up feebly. Another attempt was undertaken in XVI century and as it mentioned in one of the manuscripts of genealogy, it was organized by Seyitguly – sopy, rahmanguly – sultan and Temirbeg – yuzbashy, Musa Bin Abu Muhammed from Isfahan was an architect.

Uniqueness of modest looking mausoleum is that it resembles some of famous monuments of XV century by its planning composition. Entrance portal peshtak with vaulted niche dominates on main façade; there are smaller arched niches in two rows on both side of it.

Two spiral staircases inside the walls lead to miniature balconies and the roof. Cruciform hall is covered by double-layer dome based on shield - shaped pendentives, which are decorated by gunch plaster. Looking at the dome while standing in the centre of the hall, one can see that its edges make sixteen points star.

The Magtym Mausoleum has entered the history of national architecture as sample of classic constructive forms.

It might be new knowledge to you that there is no independent media or scholarship in Turkmenistan. Almost everything that you will ever have on post-independent Turkmenistan will be either sourced to Turkmenistan Government and scholars affiliated to them (either directly or via various missions) or travel guides by former diplomats. Concerning politics etc, you have some Moscow based specialists. Of the few western scholars—Victoria Clement, Slavomir Horak et al—who specialize on the country, none has been allowed access to the State Archives despite intense diplomatic efforts and that says something. Now, it is your call whether you want to start nuking 80% content belonging to Wikiproject Turkmenistan or apply common sense. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:33, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A search for МАГТЫМГАЛА in that document brings up no hits, so we're still where we were. Quoting from a tourist website (i.e., essentially an advert) does not substantiate notability. I have no problem with deleting poorly-sourced non-notable Geostubs en masse, regardless of what country they apply to. User:FOARP (talk) 20:46, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot speak a lick of Turkmen, but when I search for Magtymg-, I get multiple hits. Google Translate's limited Turkmen-English translation capabilities mention that it's next to words like village. I'm not sure if this is what it refers to, but I can't tell what else it could be. But it does make me wonder why the article name is Makhtumkala instead of Magtymgala. Dege31 (talk) 19:45, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Search better. Till now, you were stating that the govt website does not mention the topic of the article by name at all. Now you are proposing that the government source describing the village and associated mausoleum be discounted because it is an advertisement?
How did you ascertain it to be a tourist website? The website is of "Altyn Asyr", mouthpiece of the National news agency. TrangaBellam (talk)
(edit conflict)You want more "legal recognition?"

Sany we onuň üýtgemek ýagdaýy [of ÇYPAR AGŞAMÇYSY]: Ýary-ganatlaryň ýek‑tüki Magtymgala oba-synda (Sumbar jülgesi) [...]

Number and tendencies to change [of COMMON NOCTULE]: Single occurrences were registered in Magtymgala village (on Sumbar river) [...]
— Atayev, K; Kokanova, E., eds. (2011). The Red Data Book of Turkmenistan. Vol. 2: Invertebrate and Vertebrate Animals (3 ed.). Ashgabat: Ministry of Nature Protection, Government of Turkmenistan. p. 314.

Even more?

Gerkez obasynda, 10 kilometr Gündogarda Magtymgala obasy ýerleşýär. Obada XIV asyrdan galan ýadygärlik Magtym Mäzemiň aramgähi seleňläp dur. Rowaýatlara görä, bu mawzoleý ozallar türkmeniň magtymlar tiresiniň keramatly şyhynyň aramgähimiş. Aramgähde 3-4 sany mazar bar. Geçen asyryň ortalaryna çenli aramgähiň içinde arça agajyndan ýasalan uly sandyk bardy. Şol sandyk kitapdan doly eken. Ol kitaplar soň ýok edilipdir. Aramgähiň çep tarapyndaky uly gaýanyň üstünde ir döwürlerden galan galanyň sudurlary bar. Şol obaly ýaşuly Öwezberdi aganyň aýtmagyna görä, bu gala hem berk goralýan, barmasy aňsat bolmadyk bir dagyň üstünde ýerleşipdir. Muny basybalyjylar şunça synanyşsalar-da, alyp bilmändirler. Her çozuşa galanyň ilaty berk gaýtawul bermegi başarypdyr. Galanyň töwereklerinde, Sumbar jülgesiniň ugurlaryna ekin ekipdirler, mal bakypdyrlar.Ýagy çozan mahalynda bolsa, hemmesi gala ýygnanar ekenler. Galada juda köp adam bolupdyr. Ätiýaçlyk suwlary gutaranda olar Sumbardan dürli suw gaplarda suw alyp, hatara durup, bir-biriniň eline berip, galadaky daşdan howza guýar ekenler. Gaýra ýurtly bir kerwen mydama şu gala gelip, söwda-satyk edip, iküç gün dynç alar eken. Şeýdip, ol kerwen galanyň hanynyň, ilatynyň ynamyna girýär. Olar gije gelse-de, eglenmän, dogry gala goýberer ekenler. Bir gezek ol söwda etmäge gaýdanynda, ýurt görer diýip, öz oglunam ýany bilen alyp gaýdýar. Gelşine-de eglenmän, gala girýär. Dynç alanyndan soňra geçip gidýär. Onuň ogluny alyp gelendigini bilen duşmanlar oglanjygy alyp, söwdagäriň öňünde: «Bize şol gala girmek üçin ýol tapyp ber, bolmasa-da ogluňy öldüreris» diýýärler. Täjir kerweni bilen gijäniň bir wagty gelip, galanyň derwezesini kakýar. Derweze açylanda, duşmanlar gala girip, galanyň ilatyny gyrýarlar. Ogly olja, gyzy ýesir edýärler. Şondan soň, ol gala öňki kaddyna gelip dikelmändir. Bu oba Magtymgala diýen adyň, bu ýerde iňňän ir döwürlerden bäri «magtymlar» tiresiniň ýaşanlygyndan galan bolmagy mümkindir. Galanyň Gündogar we Günbatar taraplarynda birki metrden beýik bolmadyk daşlardan gurulan diwarlaryň galyndylary henizlerem bar.
— "Geçmişiň gözli şaýatlary". serhetabat-dovletabat.gov.tm. Retrieved 2021-12-05.

TrangaBellam (talk) 20:52, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:37, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more round, please. It would be great to have some fresh eyes on this that aren't involved in the article itself. Also please keep it civil.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:41, 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 no consensus. If folks are concerned about "bad faith" nominations they should take it to WP:ANI.

Regardless, I am not convinced this subject necessarily meets WP:NGEO but I'm also not convinced that it "doesn't." Just more rehashes of prior AfD discussions with not as much discussion specifically about the nominated place.

I suggest folks do their best to expand and improve the existing article. If someone wishes to renominate this article again with a policy-based rationale for deletion, after improvements are made, you are welcome to do so.

Thanks for assuming good faith in this decision and happy new year. Missvain (talk) 00:30, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tasharvat

Tasharvat (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)

Only source is an entry in a travel guide; I did not find anything that would establish notability in my WP:BEFORE search. –dlthewave ☎ 03:23, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your advice which is neither here nor there. The editor has been nominating tens of articles from different geographical regions in the belief that they violate GEOLAND - it is impossible that someone will be competent enough to ascertain legal status of territories in so many countries and such a bull-in-the-chinashop approach is only indicative of hubris. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:04, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, competence is required, and part of competence is ensuring that the subjects of articles are notable, and that the articles are sourced. At the point that Dlthewave (talk · contribs) nominated this article, the article stated that it was a small grove adjacent to a spring, where travellers would rest. Since there was no indication that anyone actually lived there, it doesn't qualify for automatic notability as a populated place. The article was (is!) referenced to a single source, a travel guide. Generally one would hope for a couple, even three independent, in-depth sources (that's the advice people regularly get at the Tea House), and the draft guidelines on transport (obviously not binding), Wikipedia:Notability_(transportation) specifically state that notability cannot be determined by a travel guide. Of course notability depends on whether sources could be found, not on whether they currently exist in the article. But it is a matter of common sense that it is impossible to prove a negative (no one, no matter how thorough their BEFORE, can be certain there is no source out there, somewhere) - so the BEFORE checks must be on a best-effort basis. If you write an article, and you don't want it to land up at AfD, it makes sense to source it thoroughly before putting it in article-space, especially if you know that the sources are hard to find. The argument that you are a better expert than the nominator is unhelpful; ultimately the decision must be taken based on the article and its subject, not on who we consider the more expert. I'm not actually stating delete on this, yet, because you've said there are better sources. But I'm using an element of trust here; if the sources don't appear, this article is going to land up at AfD again in a year, with the classic "kept last time because X said sources exist, no sources subsequently added, remains a stub about a place that isn't significant", and that doesn't help anyone. Draft space would give you 6 months to work on this without having to fend off AfD nominations. Elemimele (talk) 17:06, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It takes one Google search and about 5 seconds of attention-span to reach at this website. Which mentions about a historically important caravan-serai and points to "Religious and spiritual monuments to Central Asia". Author M. Hashimov. Saga publishing house, 2001. This is bare-minimum WP:BEFORE - I am not demanding that he visit Türkmenistanyň döwlet kitaphanasy to hunt for sources.
    People, self-declaring to be from the West, need to be aware of how their seemingly innocuous actions (cough, cough) perpetuate systematic bias. WP:NTRAN was never a guideline/policy: Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:13, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • My comments are not based on a one-off deletion event. To go an a tangent, Amustard (former ambassador of USA to Turkmenistan) had created an article about the Chairman of the National Oil Agency (equivalent of Darren Woods for ExxonMobil). Days later, some editor chose to send it to draft and then, another admin (!) redirected it to the Oil Agency.
    We (including me) need to do better wrt avoiding perpetuation of systematic bias. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:30, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you actually have the book you've just quoted? The reason I ask is that you've added a page-number for the entry, but a Google search for that book gives me only three hits: this WP article, and two entries from the Silk Road Adventures website. I'd strongly suggest including the ISBN in the reference. Otherwise someone's going to ask whether it actually exists. Saga publishing house doesn't help much either; Saga Press specialises in fantasy and science fiction. Fighting systematic bias doesn't mean giving up on sourcing. Elemimele (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How can I provide a page number without having the book? There was some important fortress in the place, about 150 years ago. Some more info. A sad end. Do you still need more sources to deem the area as historically significant (on multiple grounds: the caravanserai, the fortress, and the installation) and !vote keep? All of my sources came from Gbooks and I haven't even bothered to go into vernacular sources like at this AfD; as I said, this nomination was a poor case of WP:BEFORE. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:03, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Two of the google books hits you've found are definitely useful, and in agreement: an army contingent turned up there by mistake and built a small fort, before realising they were in the wrong place and there wasn't as much water as they'd hoped, and going away again. That may be enough to make the place notable, and those two books should be used as references if it is. I am still not happy with the Hashimov book: since you have it, please could you update the reference so it's possible for another reader to find it? It doesn't have to be readily available, but it does have to be cited in such a way that someone could find it, if they had sufficient time, energy and funding. An ISBN would help. Armed only with Google, I have failed miserably. Elemimele (talk) 18:13, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The book is in Russian Language and only a few hundred copies were published from Samarkand. Local Uzbek libraries have it and atleast one in Ashgabat. I can probably have the pages scanned for you. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, my personal view is that the two best sources so far are two of the Google-books that you found above, giving evidence of a fort there, and significant military relevance. It would be nice to know more about the place merely as a resting-place on the silk route too. I'm not sure how useful it is to cite the Russian book because, although its scholarship may be excellent, being printed in such small numbers it doesn't do much for the location's notability. I do feel that if we're going to cite the book, it might be worth stretching the point to include a link to the silk-road adventures website. I know it's not the greatest of sources, but it's accessible, and it does indicate that someone actually read the book, enough to want to quote from it. But based on the information you've found, I'm going for a weak keep; not the most pivotal location in the world, but still interesting and worth a mention. Elemimele (talk) 13:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:41, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:36, 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 00:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chokamkuru Langneh

Chokamkuru Langneh (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 article created by a WP:SPA about a young musician. The article was twice rejected at AfC before being moved into mainspace by the article creator, since when it has been further edited by that account and another WP:SPA, both of whom have removed templates regarding Notability and COI. The sourcing of the article is largely to non-notable playlists and an album review on a site which showcases new indie musicians; the best of the sources provided is an interview bylined to "Karbi Anglong Today". As well as this biographical article, there are similarly sourced articles about the subject's recordings (Life in Frames, , Draft:Rong-Aje (song), You Wouldn't Know (Chokamkuru Langneh song)). I am not seeing evidence that WP:MUSICBIO notability has been attained. AllyD (talk) 16:20, 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 00:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oba Akenzua Cultural Centre

Oba Akenzua Cultural Centre (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)

Can't find enough in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 15:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:28, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:16, 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. ✗plicit 02:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Max Harwood

AfDs for this article:
Max Harwood (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 actor. Fails WP:NFILM 1друг (talk) 15:47, 21 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) 18:34, 28 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, 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 speedy keep. Procedural keep due to information provided by User:Mujinga. If folks wish to renominate this article with another policy-based rationale, they are able to do so. Missvain (talk) 03:55, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fernanda G. Weiden

Fernanda G. Weiden (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)

Lack of notability, as a system administrator, the person is a free software user but not a developer. The page reads like the career summary on a CV. If Google and Facebook want to make prominent pages about their female employees on their own web sites and organizations in their sphere of influence then I feel it is commendable but not notable for Wikipedia. TransparencyDude (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - has significant coverage in reliable sources. The article was in a bad state, I've cleaned it up a bit and a BEFORE search would have revealed new sources such as Exame. Further there seems to be something fishy going on in that:
  • 1/ the nominator has previously been warned last year for introducing defamatory content on the Free Software Foundation Europe article
  • 2/ two days ago a blog post went up on the fsfellowship.eu website which is pretty much an attack on Fernanda Weiden and her wikipedia page (I won't link it here)
  • 3/ the fsfellowship clearly has beef with the Free Software Foundation Europe, which Weiden is/was involved with
  • The beef may or may not be justifiable, but it's not in itself a good reason to campaign to get Fernanda G. Weiden's wikipedia page deleted. Mujinga (talk) 15:42, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This nomination has a strong whiff of bias even in the opening sentence where the nominator implies that developers (like me) are more notable than operators (like the subject). My German is quite weak, so I can't reliably evaluate many of the sources, but I'd support a procedural close. pburka (talk) 16:12, 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. Geschichte (talk) 08:19, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Label Bleu

Label Bleu (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)

Lack of notability; no references Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:04, 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 keep. RL0919 (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tiku Weds Sheru

Tiku Weds Sheru (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 subject. Draft Already exist. Blackfishes (talk) 14:59, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ignore the weird draft comment - does this meet WP:GNG?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See prior relisting comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:16, 6 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 redirect to Westwood One. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 18:30, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

True Country

True Country (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)

Unreferenced since 2019. The name (which is identical to that of a feature film, and a very commonly-used phrase) makes a thorough WP:BEFORE very difficult, but limiting using "Dial Global" and other such phrases I find only apparent PR hits/bare mentions such as these ones:1 2. Besides this there are only the usual Wiki mirrors, sound cloud etc. Fails WP:GNG. FOARP (talk) 14:43, 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. While it may be useful, consensus is that it doesn't meet criteria for an article. If someone would like to work on this in draftspace to see if it could possibly work for a merger, I have no objection to restoring it there. Star Mississippi 16:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of BBC News Special episodes

List of BBC News Special episodes (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 a list of special news episodes. I can’t see any sources discussing the list set as a whole, or any basis for our hosting this list as part of an encyclopedia. Does not pass WP:NLIST. Mccapra (talk) 14:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I like to keep it because when people at this article in 10 to 15 years, they know who hosted which broadcast, who was reporting and what was the subject. It can be increased and add references when it comes. College2021 (talk) 18:37, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This can be a useful if somewhat niche list. Remember that Wikipedia has plenty of episode lists for TV shows that are frequently less notable. In it's current state, however, it seems to be very short, and if I have to guess, very incomplete. Per Rillington, maybe moving it to draft space is best. Av = λv (talk) 15:18, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- While some interesting keep arguments have been made, and I appreciate the work that has gone into this, I really do not see what purpose this serves as a Wikipedia article. Ignoring for the moment the fact that the list is nothing like complete (covering only specials covering a few political events in 2018 and 2019) - there are several other issues to my mind. BBC News Specials are often produced at very short notice and are unscheduled (so getting details of older ones would be challenging) -so an episode guide is an odd thing. The titles vary - it is not like BBC News Special is a brand for a series as I think is being implied here, but something used (inconsistently) to denote special coverage of a major event. Indeed BBC News Special redirects to BBC News - it would be odd to have a list of episodes for something that there is not even an article about! In fact the BBC News article does not even mention news specials, which I think seriously brings into question their importance. Sometimes the specials are just essentially extended news bulletins. I do not see what would set them apart from extended special coverage of any event by BBC news in its history, or ITN for that matter. As I say I appreciate the work that has gone into this, but I don't think it meets notability requirements and has too many other issues which in my view preclude it as a Wikipedia article. Dunarc (talk) 16:30, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This really isn't a list that we should have; the BBC can, and should, break into programming for major news events, and that's not a surprise or something that needs cataloging. Per WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Nate • (chatter) 22:36, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rillington. Lots of topics on WP have similar list status. Jimthing (talk) 05:39, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A lot of the arguments here are of the WP:ITSUSEFUL variety, which is not generally accepted as a good argument at AfD. Relisting to see if there are more on-point arguments to be offered.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:08, 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 keep. Daniel (talk) 01:45, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cashmere Nicole

Cashmere Nicole (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 -- any notability is as head of a company---but the company itself is of no notability or even significance. The personal details about her life are inappro priate in an encyclopedia ,and would be better suited to a PR write up. There's. extensive name-dropping, and making much of minor charities.

The refs, needless to say, are the expected promotional interviews. DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 4 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) 06:01, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mild keep She was on Good Morning America and has a few other articles about her, I think just barely pushing this one over the notability hump. Oaktree b (talk) 22:43, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Remains entirely promotional and if the fluff were completely removed, there would be no content. Consider " endorsed by Tati Westbrook and Jacki Aina. In 2014, Nicole's story was featured on Beyoncé's website, Beyonce.com, as part of Breast Cancer Awareness Month.[4] [5] The firm is based in San Diego and promoted by Gabby Douglas. " -- 4 consecutive name-drops. And not everyone on GoodMorningAmerica is notable . Her firm has an article, but I don';t think it's notable either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 05:25, December 14, 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I chopped that section, feel free to chop more .. but the point is the sources and I would say articles in Forbes, Glamour, Allure, Ebony indicate notability on top of Good Morning America Mujinga (talk) 16:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 14:13, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Passes WP:GNG. Not to pleased with the comments about her personal life by the nominator. Many people with Wikipedia articles have had plenty of unsettling things happen in their lives that are in their articles. It ends up looking like this nomination is more WP:IDONTLIKEIT than anything else with comments like that. Regardless, she's notable. Sources:
Missvain (talk) 04:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the argument made by Missvain. I, too, am discouraged by the comments in the nomination, even more so given the origins of this article. Since when do we not care for personal details? For context, this article was created during a gender-gap-focused edit-a-thon co-hosted by the White House. Almost all in attendance were young women of color hoping to close the gap by creating or editing articles about notable women in business. The article was later 'beefed' up by me using the sources highlighted above. Deleting when the sources are clearly 'there' sends a bad message to newer editors, especially those outside the typical editor profile.-Ariel Cetrone (WMDC) (talk) 21:05, 23 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) 01:45, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Olga Litvinenko (businesswoman)

Olga Litvinenko (businesswoman) (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 individual. Does not meet WikiProject Beauty Pageants notability guidelines nor is she notable as a businessperson. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 11:53, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Make that five new articles. Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! (talk) 16:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:26, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 14:12, 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 and redirect to Abhishek Banerjee (politician)#Membership drive. Not evidently notable, but reasonable to redirect as a search term. RL0919 (talk) 00:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Banglar Jubo Shakti

Banglar Jubo Shakti (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)

Not notable. RPSkokie (talk) 12:52, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • It seems like a very new organization. Still not notable enough. But its gaining popularity according to the news references. However, not all the citations are from reliable news sources and same news from different news medias added too. Mommmyy (talk) 22:35, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 15:37, 7 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 redirect to Irvinebank. ✗plicit 00:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stannary Hills Dam

Stannary Hills Dam (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)

Unreferenced since 2009. Nothing found in my WP:BEFORE. Gbooks, GNews, internet archive, JStor (etc.) all negative (weirdly I get a hit for a Guardian photo-essay but the name isn't actually mentioned on the page so maybe this is a meta-data thing). I guess people have been keeping this because "there must be sources" but sometimes there just aren't any. Considered redirects/merges but there's no obvious target nor any sourced information to actually merge. FOARP (talk) 13:00, 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 redirect to Evermore (Taylor Swift album). Both songs have received the majority of their coverage as part of the album, and so don't currently stand on their own; the info should be merged into the album article. -- Aervanath (talk) 20:28, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cowboy like Me

Cowboy like Me (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)
Ivy (Taylor Swift song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This song article fails WP:NSONGS. Sources used in this article are album reviews. Two sources (TuneBat and Musicnotes are primary sources, and interpretations of primary sources are potentially WP:OR. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created. I suggest this article be redirected to Evermore (Taylor Swift album). Ippantekina (talk) 03:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: For the same reason, I propose Ivy (Taylor Swift song) for deletion (or merge or redirect). Sources in this article are limited to album reviews, and per NSONGS album reviews do not establish notability. Ippantekina (talk) 03:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Cowboy like Me", no opinion on "Ivy": I am cribbing/copying quite heavily from a similar argument I've made in regards to My Tears Ricochet because, at least in my view, these are two sides of the same coin in this instance, and I have similar opinions on both of their nominations - I'm also not giving my input on Ivy for similar reasons - Cowboy like Me is the article that I am familiar with and I'm not presently interested in judging the quality of Ivy at the moment.
Yes, "Cowboy like Me" does not meet WP:NSONGS - the majority of its coverage is established from reviews of Evermore, but I would argue it meets WP:GNG. Evermore, as an album, recieved quite a significant amount of coverage, and while not every track on it is necessarily notable, I would argue "Cowboy like Me" is, as it has recieved significant coverage, even if that coverage is from album reviews of Evermore.
The article consists of about 712 words by my reckoning, and even assuming half of that would be unnecessary in the Folklore article, this still leaves 356 words of the article that would be merged into Evermore (as per WP:NSONGS, some of this material would be contained in the album article), to an area of the "Songs" section that currently consists of 52 words on "Cowboy like Me". In my view, merging the articles would be unnecessary, and simply give undue weight to "Cowboy like Me" to account for its notability. --LivelyRatification (talk) 06:38, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You acknowledge that "Cowboy like Me" does not meet NSONGS. I will break down the article:
"Background and release": can be reasonably merged into Evermore;
"Composition and lyrics": can be reasonably merged into Evermore (the musicnotes.com or tubenet sources are primary sources);
"Reception": negligible. This consists of all album reviews;
"Charts": can be seen at Taylor Swift singles discography#Other charted songs.
So this article can be reasonably merged without fear of cluttering the Evermore article. Quantity over quality. Ippantekina (talk) 08:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:28, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 11:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Ivy" now qualifies the notability criteria on WP:NSONGS too following its feature on Dickinson, generating mutiple sources on the Internet. Highlighting this only because Ippantenkina stated they believed this song doesn't need an article because it didn't pass NSONGS. In my opinion, passing WP:GNG is enough to warrant an article. But now that it passes both, there shouldn't be an issue. Ronherry (talk) 14:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bold third relist for futher input to establish a clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:46, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kabhi Kabhie Ittefaq Sey

Kabhi Kabhie Ittefaq Sey (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)

Most probably a case of WP:TOOSOON Princepratap1234 (talk) 11:42, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:36, 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. SpinningSpark 17:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Team8

Team8 (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. Lack of reputable sources and dubious editing history. MaskedSinger (talk) 11:04, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:25, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Although Forbes and TechCrunch (admittingly they are not very reliable as Multi mentioned. But they can be used to gauge notability in my opinion) covered this company, most reports seem to come from Israeli websites: Calcalist (calcalistech.com, calcalist.co.il), nocamels.com, and the Jerusalem Post. Note that calcalist seems to be the main source of reports, both in Hebrew and in English, smells fishy. This company or group may be somewhat notable in Israel (and even here it appears rather obscure; not a lot Hebrew reporting on it.), but internationaly or in the anglosphere? Definitely not. Av = λv (talk) 15:35, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The fact that something may not be well-known in the Anglosphere does not mean that it is not notable. What matters is whether it has been covered in reliable sources of any language from any country. And judging by the sources included in the article, this one has. Mlb96 (talk) 05:46, 5 January 2022 (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 as follows:
    • This TechCrunch article is based entirely on an announcement by Intel. For example, here's an article from the day before from the Jerusalem Post covering the exact same announcement with the same details even using the same quotes from company execs. Not "Independent Content", fails WP:ORGIND
    • Reuters article is also entirely based on a company announcement (second sentence confirm it too) with no "Independent Content". Here's the same announcement covered by the New York Times. Fails WP:ORGIND
    • The Forbes article is written by a "contributor" therefore fails as a WP:RS
    • This Times of Israel article dated 23rd October 2018 is based entirely on this Press Release of the same date with the addition of an interview. No "Independent Content", fails ORGIND.
    • The Bloomberg reference makes no secret of the fact it is based entirely on an announcement and interview with various involved executives. It has no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND.
Contrary to some of the comments above, the criteria for establishing notability is not based on the quantity of coverage and it matters not a whit the language and the country. If source exist in martian, post them here and if they meet NCORP, all good. But none of those references are good for the purposes of establishing notability and since I have been unable to find any references that meet NCORP criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 14:50, 7 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. Fails WP:SIGCOV.

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) 00:37, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vishnu Govind

AfDs for this article:
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. There is an award but only minor coverage. scope_creepTalk 10:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Oakshade: That is primary problem with this article, these are PR interview's, made at the begining of the film, in question. They fail WP:BLPPRIMARY. They are not secondary sources, and this is a WP:BLP. Where is the secondary sources. I've no doubt the Kerala award is notable, re: last Afd, but where is the other secondary sources. Not interviews. Real secondary sources. The gold standard for BLP's, references that are needed to prove notabilty. . scope_creepTalk 10:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are many sources attached to this article that are not good, but that does not negate the ones that are. That would be a matter of regular editing, not deletion. Oakshade (talk) 16:36, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We will go through the references. Most of them routine annoucements and film PR. scope_creepTalk 16:40, 23 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 San Pablo, Laguna. Hog Farm Talk 14:15, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bagong Bayan, San Pablo

Bagong Bayan, San Pablo (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 and all other barangay articles of the village-level divisions of the city of San Pablo, Laguna listed below fail WP:GEOLAND. Majority of them function like WP:DIRECTORY and some are unsourced. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other barangays

Concepcion, San Pablo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Del Remedio, San Pablo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

San Diego, San Pablo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

San Francisco, San Pablo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

San Isidro, San Pablo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

San Jose, San Pablo, Laguna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

San Lorenzo, San Pablo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

San Lucas 1, San Pablo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

San Lucas 2, San Pablo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

San Mateo, San Pablo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Santa Isabel, San Pablo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Santo Angel, San Pablo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

VI-D, San Pablo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

VII-B, San Pablo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

VII-D, San Pablo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List added by — JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See also majority of the results at Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines/Frequent discussions/Articles on barangays#AfD method. If not deleted, then redirected. If someone will !vote for merge, then there should be a decent and good table under San Pablo, Laguna#Barangays (which it does not have as of this writing). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:11, 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 10:27, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Burdon

Hugo Burdon (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)

PROD removed. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCRIC. Initially the article made the claim this player debuted in first-class cricket in 2019, which was entirely made-up. This claim has been removed, with a new claim for notability added in that he was a substitute fielder in a Test match. This too does not make the player notable. Until they debut at senior domestic level, they will fail CRIN and by extension GNG. StickyWicket (talk) 09:35, 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 Draftify. There was general agreement, even amongst many who wanted to retain the material in some form, that this single study was not notable enough for a standalone page. There was also general agreement that a more general article on psychedelics and creativity might be viable. It is unclear whether or not this page is a suitable basis for constructing such an article, but there is no reason to stop editors from trying if they so wish. Hence draftify. SpinningSpark 14:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Psychedelics in problem-solving experiment

Psychedelics in problem-solving experiment (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 single science experiment with no reliable medical sources. It was initially redirected by Alexbrn (talk · contribs) in October 2017 after sequentially removing massive amounts of WP:COATRACK and non-RS, but was unilaterally restored in December by Ianneman (talk · contribs) on invalid grounds that "[i]n the current climate of research, fully sourced discussion on this subject is impossible". Alexbrn recently did another trim and then PRODded the article, but was deprodded by Custoo (talk · contribs) without explanation. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:54, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LaundryPizza03 I'm suprised to read that you concider that I didn't explain why I deprodded. I did explain it in the talk page before doing it as instructed. As you can see in the talk page the explanation is too long for edit summary. Perhaps you didn't see my explanation in the talk page?--Custoo (talk) 17:38, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Custoo: I'm sorry about not reading it first. It wasn't very clear, however. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:40, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not-notable research experiment. The one notionally viable source (Doody) does not even mention this particular piece of research. If anything emerges per WP:NOPAGE it would in any case be better mentioned at James Fadiman where it would make better sense. Alexbrn (talk) 09:00, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge: I just published a revision on the article trying to demonstrate that it can be improved. I think it can be improved even more but I could only do so much with given time since 1) it's five days to christmas so I didn't acutely have more time to work on this 2) AfD process states that articles listed are normally discussed for at least seven days so I might expect someone to make the decission as soon as tomorrow 3) I don't want to spend time working on this before I know it won't be deleted and I have the necessary time to work on it without unnecessary pressure from AfD process. Currently the article reads much like two other articles Concord Prison Experiment and Marsh Chapel Experiment. These articles build upon initial experiments done in the 1960s and continue with contemporary follow-ups.
The above argument by Alexbrn that the only viable source doesn't even mention this research doesn't hold true anymore as I have provided three more contemporary sources that cite the original research. This also brings into doubt the argument that this research is not notable. It seems notable enough for the contemporary researchers so that they cite and revisit it even 40 years afterwards.
I don't also think merging the current content to James Fadiman would make much sense as the scope of the article is no longer constricted to Fadimans work and also the first author was Willis Harman. If justification of standalone article is still disputed I could offer few other solutions.
The article could be reframed not to build upon the initial experiment but to be about studies of psychedelics effect on creativity and cognition in general. I guess it might then resemble the article Psychedelic therapy which sums up the research on therapeutic potential of psychedelics even though the clinical experiments are not still finished so that that the therapeutic use could be evaluated or aproved. I doubt though there will be as much contemporary material to add in future as there is for the topic of psychedelic therapy. I'm not sure this would be my favourite solution and that is based only in not having clear vision on how to rewrite the article.
Another solution could be to start a whole new article titled Psychedelic drug research. There would also be a root category ready to go with it. That article could bring together all the different research paths. To name few there could be 1) Effect on creativity and cognition, 2) psychedelic induced mystical experiences (Marsh Chapel Experiment and follow-ups), 3) effect on prisoners recidivism (Concord Prison Experiment and follow-ups), 4) brain imaging studies, 5) research on the quality of subjective altered states of concsiousness studied with altered states of concsiousness questionaire (5D-ASC), 6) microdosing studies 7) therapeutic studies already have article about them but it could be mentioned and then redirect there 8) pharmacology. This might reduse the tendency for standalone articles of experimental and novel topics on psychedelic research in the future as they could be included in the main article. This might make a pretty long article in the long run but then again any single topic could split into it's own article if necessary.
My first choice for now would still be to keep things as they are and start imporving this article as it is (in January after the holidays).--Custoo (talk) 21:15, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble is most of your sourcing was unreliable (preprints? seriously?) The one review which does actually cite the experiment has little to say - not sufficient to establish notability. Alexbrn (talk) 21:32, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. There's an editor right here who wants to take this on. There's no sense in deleting it out from under them while they're working on it. But articles founded on unreliable sources shouldn't be hanging around in mainspace either. -- asilvering (talk) 20:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:44, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Just like a user mentioned, the experiment is not notable and does not warrant its own page in the articlespace at this time. No SIGCOV or indication of notability from multiple reliable sources exist. One of the peer-reviewed journal articles cited is self-published and directly associated with the subject. Multi7001 (talk) 02:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify for the reasons stated by asilvering. If it was not under active development by an editor I would say delete. Based on the coverage this material probably belongs as part of a broader article and not as its own page. Caleb Stanford (talk) 04:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per POV, notability. Any relevant content belongs on the notable scientist article (James Fadiman), not in this standalone which has such limited coverage. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 13:28, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If a general article is appropriate, it can be written independently of tryign to reuse this. DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. The current article should not be in mainspace, but it feels needlessly unkind to delete it when an active editor has expressed strong interest in revising it. This and other studies done by Harman, McKim, Mogar, Fadiman, etc in the 1960s can eventually be covered in a general article about psychedelics and cognition/perception. Aeffenberger (talk) 17:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Leaning towards draftify as a WP:ATD but keeping an open mind...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:38, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No evidence that this progressed beyond pilot studies and preliminary stages of investigation or that this is an actively-debated or pursued field of study in academic research. Draftify would just leave it in purgatory. If there is legitimate research conducted in this area some day, it can be re-created. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify per Aeffenberger. Heartmusic678 (talk) 13:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Draftify I endorse retaining the original content in a modified version of the original article. Until then the original should be republished as the current version lacks useful information related to the article title. Also, I note reference above to the lack of published evidence when in fact the original study this article was based on linked to (James Fadiman) has a robust academic publishing and source in both academia and book form. Additionally, it is claimed that this is NOT an actively studied t or debated field when in fact it is. Please see NL Marson (2021) with over 10 citations for example among a number of recent studies in the last decade. Other earlier but more recent studies which investigate psychedelics in a creativity context include Janiger & Dobkin de Rios (1989). I emphasise that having an article based on a single study is not proportionate but 1) the topic is indeed being investigated, 2) significant interest is currently ongoing in psychedelics. Therefore, I suggest redraft of this article to focus on psychedelics and creativity with a subsection created for the original (James Fadiman) study with greater focus on background. I have personal interest in this topic and have used this page heavily. Dt00073 (talk) 23:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dt00073:, please refer to WP:NOMEDICAL. Personal interest or opinions of utility do not represent notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:10, 11 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 no consensus. North America1000 10:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Otilia Brumă

AfDs for this article:
Otilia Brumă (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)

Not notable five years ago, when deleted at AfD and SALTED. Not notable today, either. — Biruitorul Talk 07:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still a keep. Getting a #1 hit in multiple countries (and I don't know why a publication in Greece would lie about that) passes WP:NMUSIC. Missvain (talk) 18:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Two points to consider:
  • 1) Per WP:MUSICBIO, musicians who reach a national music chart may be notable. Significant coverage in reliable sources is at least preferred, if not absolutely required.
  • 2) Claims about charts must be supported by reliable sources, per the same policy. We don’t currently have that.
    • The claim about charting in Pakistan, India and Bulgaria is made solely by DCNews, the pet project of Bogdan Chirieac, a former informant of the Communist secret police and widely regarded as a sinister joke by legitimate Romanian journalists. No one else has made the claim. Moreover, said claim was made some 7 years after the fact, never during the alleged period of charting.
    • The claim about charting in Greece is made not by a serious news site, but by an entertainment portal with loose journalistic standards. It is, as far as I can see, unsupported by any sites in Greece itself. (This is what I said, not that Greek sites lied.)
    • The claim about charting in Turkey is made by the same dubious site that made the Greece claim. It is unsupported by the official Twitter account of the national Turkish music chart — the source from which we collect our information regarding songs that chart in Turkey.
  • So: where did the subject chart, and what legitimate sources (such as, for instance, the sites of the charts themselves) support the claim? — Biruitorul Talk 18:25, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — as a procedural matter, one cannot simply circumvent WP:SALT by recreating under a different name. Certain steps must be followed. Otilia (singer) is protected from recreation, and that must be dealt with. — Biruitorul Talk 07:05, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no horse in this race, but speaking as the admin who declined your initial speedy deletion request on this page, I disagree with regards to this particular article. The creation-protection was owing to the page being repeatedly recreated years ago, not because of a specific consensus that we should never have a page on this topic. I see nothing to indicate that this is what's going on here—the editor who created the article this time around is a long-term editor who has a long history of writing about Romanian-language pop culture. Page protection is a tool to protect Wikipedia from disruption, not a ban on Wikipedia ever having an article on a given topic. ‑ Iridescent 06:24, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And while the nominator and I disagree, in the end, it's up to my fellow administrators and reviewers to decide. Here are additional sources that work towards the subject meeting English Wikipedia's WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, etc.. Also, Bilionara was featured on the best selling NR1 Dance Hits 2015, which hit #2 in Turkey.
There are more, in other languages. Alas, I'm an English speaker. I mean geeze, I'm not a fan of "but the likes and views", but, her YouTube video for her single has over 500,000 views[17]. Missvain (talk) 18:47, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 11:33, 7 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 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 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 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]

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 delete. ✗plicit 04:55, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Best of Machinery

Best of Machinery (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)

Lacks independent coverage. Sources are advertorial/PR pieces with very similar wording. KH-1 (talk) 03:41, 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 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]

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]

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]

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]

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. After being relisted twice, it does not appear that there is clear consensus in either direction. There is certainly good recent coverage of the topic, and it is too early to tell whether there will be lasting coverage. I am closing this for now and noting that in the future the article may be nominated again for deletion and re-evaluated in the future. Malinaccier (talk) 14:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Youth hunger strike for democracy

Youth hunger strike for democracy (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)

Local/regional news story shows no signs of lasting coverage. This defies WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS and would be better suited for a single line on the Kyrsten Sinema page. It also seems like the page was created by (Redacted). Wikipedia is not a blog or online portfolio for any would-be journalists or activists. KidAd • SPEAK 02:58, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment More than 40 people from all over the country participated in the hunger strike that lasted for 15 days. The hunger strikers were on MSNBC and ABC News multiple times. They were covered in depth by Mother Jones, Washington Post, Huffington Post, Salon, The Guardian, and many other national papers. Please check out the links to the articles and TV interviews. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ningmosberger (talk • contribs) 03:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Ningmosberger (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
  • Draftify for not more than six months, at which point notability should be reconsidered: I'm not seeing evidence of the protest's impact. Just getting themselves a meeting with a senator is not enough. This is too soon for an article—if the protest carries some lasting significance, it can be moved back (in a much more neutral tone and article title). If this is kept in any form (including draftification), its title should be changed to "2021 Arizona hunger strike" or something of the like. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 04:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The name of the article has been changed. The definition of "notability" for wikipedia article is that there're multiple reputable sources referring to the event. This event has been reported on national TV, newspapers and magazines. There are at least 40 original reports and coverage on this event nationally. Regarding the impact, 40 people were willing to sacrifice their health and stop eating for days on - how often does this occur? btw, I'm requesting a global name change as the original requester of deletion was using my personal info as part of the reason for their recommendation (which is very improper, FWIW). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ningmosberger (talk • contribs) 04:38, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment On the other hand, we have non-draft articles like this on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush_broccoli_comments — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ningmosberger (talk • contribs) 05:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the OP should not have cited your personal information. However, I don't appreciate you looking through my contributory history. The reason that George H. W. Bush broccoli comments exists in mainspace, and this article should not, is that the former article has demonstrated a lasting significance over time with respect to presidential health, campaign messaging, and the broccoli industry. The latter has not demonstrated that has had an effect on state policy, hunger strikes, or even prompted a national discussion of some kind. And that's because the protest ended yesterday. We have a guideline for this, it's WP:TOOSOON—I'd read that as well. This protest is unique, and interesting, but neither of those are mentioned in our guidelines for inclusion. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 06:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did not mean any disrespect by including “personal information” in my nomination rationale. I only did so because the page’s creator uses their given name as their username. And the photos uploaded on the page were uploaded by someone of the same name. Anyone can Google that name and find a semi-public person. I made the assumption that this page was designed to be an extension of a public figure’s journalism work. Per WP:OUTING, Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person has voluntarily posted their own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Either way, I have redacted my mention of their name in the deletion rationale. KidAd • SPEAK 06:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thank you for removing reference to my personal info. This article has nothing to do with me. In fact I didn't even know that readers could see my username so easily otherwise I'd have never used it (and have since requested a global user name change after I saw your comment). And the reason I used the photos I took is that I don't want to get into copyright issues. This article has everything to do with 20-40 kids who sacrificed their health (and risked their lives) to stand up for something that they really cared about. And they have made a difference! They had talked to dozens of Congressional folks since they were in DC. Three Texas House Representatives came to DC to support them because of voter suppression in Texas that can only be addressed by a federal law. Senator Merkley (who was the primary sponsor of the For the People Act) mentioned the kids on Twitter. Senator Kelly met with them. The Senators knew that they were there. The White House knew that they were there. Even though the Senate didn't pass the bill yet, Senate Majority Leader Schumer wrote yesterday that the democracy bills would be voted again in the first week when they return. They were on Washington Post, Mother Jones, MSNBC, ABC, Fox, The Guardian, The Politico, and more. They already *had an impact*, whether the bill will eventually pass or not. Also, someone changed the title to "Arizona hunger strike" which is incorrect. They only spent 5 days in Arizona, and 10 days in DC in front of the White House. At the end, half of the kids on hunger strike were not from Arizona. They came from all over the country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ningmosberger (talk • contribs) 08:05, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Regarding "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person has voluntarily posted their own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia.": well, in fact, I did not "post my own information or links to" my personal information. You googled my username, which isn't information that I voluntarily posted. Just sayin' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ningmosberger (talk • contribs) 08:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't believe the WP:TOOSOON is applicable. Here is the description for WP:TOOSOON: "While there are topics that might arguably merit an article, sometimes it is simply too soon. Generally speaking, the various notability criteria that guide editors in creating articles require that the topic being considered be itself verifiable in independent secondary reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor is it a collection of unverifiable content. It is an encyclopedia that must be reliable. If sources do not exist, it is generally too soon for an article on that topic to be considered." As I mentioned above, the hunger strike has been covered in over 40 original articles or TV interviews, some of them included in the reference list. They are verifiable, independent, and substantial coverages of the event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ningmosberger (talk • contribs) 08:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I meant WP:PERSISTENCE. To quote Leo McGarry, "in this day and age, these kids are phenomenal". But they would either need lasting coverage or a shown impact to qualify for inclusion. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 04:56, 28 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) 04:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:52, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Regarding Impact: Right after the Senate dismissed the session, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer made this statement: "Additionally, please be advised that shortly after the 117th Congress resumes in January, the Senate will consider voting rights legislation, as early as the first week back." and "If Senate Republicans continue to abuse the filibuster and prevent the body from considering this bill, the Senate will then consider changes to any rules which prevent us from debating and reaching final conclusion on important legislation." It's difficult to prove impact, but the hunger strike definitely moved the needle in the right direction. Several Senators were tweeting about the hunger strike before they left DC. If the US Congress manages to pass the most significant voting reforms since the Civil Rights Movement (and even if they don't pass), we owe a debt of gratitude to these kids.
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. Daniel (talk) 15:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Super Soco

AfDs for this article:
Super Soco (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 entity lacks encyclopedic value WP:PROMO. Lack WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:NCORP, WP:ORGIND, and WP:RS. Suspected WP:UPE - because creator is also connected with Revolt Motors and Vmoto - both distributors of Super Soco electric bikes in India and Australia respectively. - Hatchens (talk) 02:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hatchens, could I enquire about some of your edits over the past couple of days?
On the 20th of December, at 19:08 you nominated the Super Soco page for speedy deletion.
15 minutes later, at 17:22 this edit was reverted by an experienced Wikiepeida editor, @Espresso Addict, with the comment 'Declining G11, not wholly promtional.
The next day, you have nominated the article for deletion a second time.
Could I enquire why you have re-posted the deletion tag just a day after it was knocked back by Espresso Addict? Inchiquin (talk) 04:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Inchiquin -- these are two very different deletion processes; I declined to speedy delete the article (an immediate deletion process for very clear-cut cases) but any editor is permitted then to bring the article to this forum, Articles for Deletion, for a week-long community discussion at the end of which another administrator will assess consensus on whether or not to delete the article. You are allowed to participate and argue your case for inclusion. I suggest you read the guide to deletion for information. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 07:20, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content

Please Note

Good day, my apologies about breaking up the flow of the page, however, I feel obliged to point to some errors in the first three lines of this page.


1. Firstly, Revolt Motors is not the Super Soco distributor in India, as is suggested in the third line (above). The Vmoto Soco group is the Indian distributor of the Super Soco group, and the motorcycles are distributed through the Bird Group. See source below.

Vmoto is an Australian two-wheeler manufacturing group that largely makes electric scooters. The company recently signed an MoU with the Indian company Bird Group, and will discuss collaborating for the distribution of two of its products – Super Soco CUmini and Super Soco CUx.

Source: https://gaadiwaadi.com/super-soco-cumini-electric-scooter-india-launch-confirmed/


2. Vmoto is not the Australian distributor of Super Soco, it was the international distributor, however, even that is now under question. Super Soco, a distinct Chinese entity, have challenged Vmoto's rights to distribute the brand internationally. See source below:

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...

Source: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/electric-motorcycle-brand-supersoco-issues-statement-concerning-ownership-of-the-brands-intellectual-property-rights-301434734.html

The company referred to in the statement above is Vmoto, a competitor to Super Soco.


3. Essentially, the three companies are distinct entities and competitors, and they are not subsidiaries of one another. It is not easy to understand the connections however, and I suspect the editor above may have misunderstood the relationship between them.


4. That point is important, because the allegation in relation to UPE is predicated on the assumption that these companies are subsidiaries. However, as demonstrated above, they are not. They are independent of each other, and in competition with one another.

Note that I do not have a problem declaring COI if warranted, but such is not the case here. Needless to say, I was not paid a penny for writing these articles, I have never been paid for anything that I have ever written on Wikipedia, nor will I ever accept a payment for writing an article. Inchiquin (talk) 14:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't make out a thing. Anyway let's wait for others' assessment. -Hatchens (talk) 17:10, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: At first sight this might be notable, until, that is, the references are checked. Instead we see WP:ADMASQ for a corp whose sole referencing is, broadly, churnalism. I was hoping that was not the case.
    We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 13:32, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Per rationale by both Hatchens and Timtrent. Furthermore, I do not see how SIRS can be applied here and if SIRS can’t be allied then invariably NCORP can’t be satisfied & if NCORP isn’t met then the article in question is clearly not mainspace worthy. Celestina007 (talk) 17:39, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm pretty sure Super Soco is one of the biggest in terms of market share for electric motorbikes in the world, and I think its got number one sales and pretty high profile in some European countries. So no, clearly an important company in this area and definitely shouldn't be deleted. I've been searching to get some market share information, but can't find any for electric bikes. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:30, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment It is something of a mystery to me as to why this article is being subjected to an afd when there are already articles on askoll and Niu Technologies?. I'm a little curious as to why is it that those calling for this to be deleted don't seem to have an issue with these two articles, as there isn't much difference between them. (Here I am diplomatically ignoring the issue of the dubious UPE tag, which exactly no-one believes is justified, including, I suspect, the fellow who stuck it on the article in the first place). Inchiquin (talk) 15:36, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Inchiquin:, please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. the existence or not of an article on another company in the same industry never should impact the existence or not of an article that is nominated just because they share that industry. Unless they are nominated together, each AfD considers the articles in (relative) isolation. This article is nominated and editors are commenting on its notability and sources, not the others. You are free to nominate the others if you see fit. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Eggishorn, no doubt what you say is correct. But I think one point you perhaps are not aware of is that the small group of editors who are calling for the deletion of the Super Soco article, are the pretty much the same as those who have been campaigning against Vmoto and the recently deleted Revolt Motors. So I can't help wondering why is it that these three editors are only focused on removing these three electric motorcycle companies, and not the articles on Askoll or Niu, or Ola Electric for that matter, which are actually very similar in terms of style and with respect to notability?.
By the way, in the 10+ years I have been using Wikipedia I have never nominated an article for deletion, and I don't think I ever will. Personally, I don't understand the obsession some editors have with deleting content on Wikipedia. If you have an issue with an article, surely the first option should be to edit the article?. Isn't that the point of Wikipedia, the reason the site was created?. Deleting articles is the always the lazy option, it is also a process that is all-too frequently abused, and results in perverse outcomes. For evidence of that, just look at the way in which Wikipedia has increasingly become dominated by articles focused on pop-culture minutiae over the past decade. The bottomless pit of trivial pop-cult articles shows that there is something wrong with the functioning of the afd process on this site. Inchiquin (talk) 17:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Speaking of popular culture and Wikipedia, it might be worthy of note that one of the countless pop-cult articles on Wiki seems to be of some relevance to the topic of Super Soco: That of the upcoming spy-thriller The 355, featuring Diane Kruger, Lupita Nyong'o and Penélope Cruz.
Apparently, there is a chase scene in the film, during which Diane Kruger rides a Super Soco motorcycle down a street.
You can view a photo showing the actor riding the Super Soco on this website: https://www.hollywoodoutbreak.com/2021/12/16/355s-international-feel-is-part-of-the-appeal-for-diane-kruger/
Click on the photo for a clearer shot of the German-born star riding the e-motorcycle. Inchiquin (talk) 01:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inchiquin had already been advised by an admin on 26 December that the degree of canvassing was inappropriate; the same admin declined to post at AfD, and had previously declined when mediation was requested (in relation to these AfD sequences) on 22 December.
I !voted only after extensive references had been added (1 to 13, listed above), which occurred after I had posted 7 refs at the article Talk. I did not !vote at Revolt Motors, or at Vmoto.
Editors can see candid, generalised chat about the topic between 3 and 10 December at my talk page.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I had assumed Inchiquin was probably unaware about the canvassing rule, as he seemed upfront about it when he raised it on my talk page. However, that said the discussion wasn't just about that, he raised some issues about apparently being labelled as someone who had a COI and was explaining to me about why that wasn't the case. I still don't know if the accusation about the COI was warranted, he created the three articles, but as far as I can see he's not connected with all the companies and seems to have created them in good faith. I like to encourage editors and assist editors inexperienced in an area who are creating valid content in good faith for Wikipedia. It is my gut feeling he created these articles in good faith. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:19, 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 Keep - Malformed AfD Closing this per WP:PCLOSE, nothing prevents a re-nomination that fully implements all the requirements of WP:AFDHOWTO. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:36, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The entity lacks encyclopedic value WP:PROMO. Lack WP:SIGCOV. Fails [[WP:NCORP], WP:ORGIND, and WP:RS. Suspected WP:UPE - because creator is also connected with Revolt Motors and Vmoto - both distributors of Super Soco electric bikes in India and Australia respectively. - Hatchens (talk) 02:44, 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 04:56, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sport Club São Sebastião

Sport Club São Sebastião (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 notoriety of the club is not established in the source. Perfektsionist (talk) 02:16, 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 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]
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 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 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]

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]

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 [22] It's not independent news with missing author name. [23] This is the self published. [24] there is no analysis and news is given by PR agency with comments of spokesperson of the company. [25] It is just a profile link. [26] TOI is not considered much reliable also it is based on announmenet. [27] Again a directory link. [28] unreliable profile source. [29] clear promo, self published news. [30] 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 [31] 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 [32] 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 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.
  • 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]

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]

  • 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. [33] 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]
  • 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]

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]

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) 15:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

International Association of Project Managers

International Association of Project Managers (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)

Private training provider. Paid editing. Insignificant number of certification holders compared to Project Management Institute and PRINCE2. The German version of this page was deleted a few days ago as well: [34]. Not to be confused with the better known "International Project Management Association" (IPMA). Ilumeo (talk) 20:11, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The IAPM does not organise private trainings. Nobody paid me to write this article. Compared to PMI, every PM organisation has few members... Just to clarify. In my opinion, the article is justified. Although it is a relatively small organisation, it still has members worldwide (at least according to its own data) and several sub-organisations.[1][2] If the relevance of each article is determined by the large ones, we can also close wikipedia. Unfortunately, I cannot comment on the advertising part because I am biased. Just an info to the person processing the deletion, that seems to be important here: Ilumeo and his crew are related to IPMA’s German sub-organisation GPM. A PM organisations which has a grudge against the IAPM and accordingly against this article. Why do I say this? I am aware that my comments are biased in a certain way. For the others, it should also be known. GilbertPotter (talk) 06:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC)— GilbertPotter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note to closing admin: GilbertPotter (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
I am only biased by the idea of holding wikipedia free from self-promoting articles with insufficient external reception and from people who confuse an encyclopedia with Linkedin. Ilumeo (talk) 21:16, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Illumeo's arguments seem irrelevant to me. I have just deleted an irrelavent and inaccurate part from the article that Illumeo inserted there. It seems to me that he inserted it on purpose to support his otherwise unsubstantiated arguments. As far as I can see, the article is not advertising, but if the general consensus is that it is advertising, then the last part about "Special features of IAPM" can be shortened, and then it should be fine in my opinion.FreakyFridolin (talk) 06:40, 15 December 2021 (UTC) — FreakyFridolin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep: While I agree that the article was not the best to be accepted (i.e. it includes mostly primary sources and no article links to it), I'd say that it still should be kept, as it has acceptable sourcing and is neutral in most parts. Luxtay the IInd (talke to mee) 13:42, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It just about has enough independent sources. Rathfelder (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • However, primary sources are not a valid evidence of the encyclopedic relevance of an organization. The secondary sources are mostly blog posts that definitely cannot be used as evidence of a high level of awareness. Overall, the external reception is not sufficient as it was mentioned here as well. If the majority of the article advertises certificates that can be purchased, I don't find that really neutral either. Ilumeo (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The sourcing in the article relies a lot on primary sources. The ones that are not are not reliable sources for establishing notability. The CIO article is probably the best of the lot and its just a list of certifications. Top 13? Why 13? Probably because they are all of the certifications. -- Whpq (talk) 00:10, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://iapmnigeria.com
  2. ^ https://www.iapmindonesia.net

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:36, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: 1. Of course, the article uses many primary sources and comparatively few secondary sources. However, the secondary sources are all reputable, even if they are mainly in the project management field.2. Especially small organisations have few or no sources outside the field in which they are active and have, in my opinion, a right to be in Wikipedia. 3. I went back to look for mentions and came across some that i would (at least partially) include after the deletion discussion is finished. 3.1 The computer magazine Heise reports about IAPM as the first organisation in the agile field without recertification.Click3.2 Jacobs University Bremen has a new professor and calls him an expert because he is certified by the IAPM. Click3.3 BTU Cottbus-Senftenberg promotes the IAPM certificate.Click 3.4 For doctoral students at the University of Stuttgart, the IAPM's project management methods are part of the course which "belongs to the interdisciplinary courses for teaching interdisciplinary key qualifications according to §5 Para. 4 No. 2 PromO 2016".Click 1Click 2Click 3Click 43.5 Postdocs of the Otto von Guericke Graduate Academy who are part of Otto von Guericke University Magdeburg are trained by a trainer certified by the IAPM. This is also openly communicated by the university. Click3.6 The IAPM Indonesia Network has 3290 subscribers on Youtube and 1400-10000 views on each video. Click3.7 The IHK AKADEMIE TRAUNSTEIN (a state commissioned organisation for training and education) and the district of Traustein (Germany) advertise that a certificate can be obtained from the IAPM after their training.Click3.8 Indeeds articles about The IAPM Click GilbertPotter (talk) 12:46, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to remember: GilbertPotter is a WP:SPA, the creator of this page that is the subject of this XfD and therefore has no WP:NPOV. These sources are just another desperate attempt to ascribe more relevance to the article than it has. Much of the page that is the subject of this XfD also seems exaggerated in terms of marketing. E.g. there it says that "IAPM's methods were recognized by the Procurement Office of the German Federal Ministry of the Interior". That sounds reputable at first glance... However, there was no official letter of recognition or a certificate by the Ministry. Instead, IAPM once was mentioned at the edge of a single job add in 2018.[1] With the right marketing, it looks like more. Ilumeo (talk) 21:28, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ilumeo I have the feeling that you don't want to contribute anything productive. You make no effort to read anything in the article in question or to read the comments of others in this deletion discussion. On my page, I have clearly noted WP:COI, if you would bother, you would know that and not have to write it. This has already been pointed out by The Grid in this deletion discussion. If you think something is marketing, you are free to edit it (but please on a correct and researched basis, not like last time). By the way, your "source" is not the one I linked to - it's Click which links here Click. Under this link you will also find the PDF document with the invitation to tender. There you will also find the sentence (in German) "In the performance of the advisory service, the respective current and recognised standards and methods, in particular those of the federal government, are to be implemented. These include, among others: [...]IAPM (International Association of Project Managers)[...]" This is from the first invitation to tender, I will refrain from quoting the other two. Everything can be found under the sources.GilbertPotter (talk) 08:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your commitment in all honor, I understand it's about making money. A page in Wikipedia would lead to greater awareness and thus more sales. The goal is certainly that a lot of people acquire a certificate that would be legitimized by Wikipedia. However, the IAPM certificates are not yet well known to justify an encyclopedic relevance. Around 5,000 certificates have only been issued worldwide so far. If you go to an interview, the recruiters will certainly not know about these certificates. There are also numerous other providers of this very insignificant size. So where is the added value? I could create a nice-looking layout and then print it out as a certificate, that would be just as relevant. Ilumeo (talk) 21:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't understand what you're trying to do all the time with these off-the-cuff assumptions. Apart from that, you're saying all the wrong things again. Do you want to emphasise that you have a personal vendetta here (5000 is just another wrong number)? I have already given other sources above, some of which report on the IAPM independently of the topic of project management, which in my opinion indicates relevance. Besides, this is not just about the certificates issued. There are just shy of 40,000 people in the IAPM network.GilbertPotter (talk) 09:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The page that is the subject of this XfD has a strong focus on certificates. Therefore, this should also be addressed in the deletion discussion. You constantly assume things here about my background, whereas I only want to keep the quality in Wikipedia high. You have to be able to deal with critical voices without feeling personally attacked. To be precise, 5,572 certificates were issued, not 5,000 (you are right). But do these 572 additional certificates make the organization more relevant? No. I have also seen the information on 40,000 network members, but don't find it very meaningful. What is that supposed to be? Partly this includes the followers in social networks. Is that the sum of it then? If so, then it is no reliable data. E.g. if one person likes the IAPM on three social networks, that's still only one person, not three people. --Ilumeo (talk) 17:29, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ilumeo, that's very much assuming bad faith. Any mention of possible COI has been exhausted here. I would suggest to drop it for the sake of continuing to have any form of productive discussion about this AfD. Focus on the content and not the contributor. – The Grid (talk) 22:57, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Back to the content: The content of the article does not go into the underlying project management model ("PM Guide"). In terms of content, what makes IAPM's PM model different or better than PRINCE2 and the other known PM models? Of all the possible content, this would be the most relevant one here. A critical examination of the corresponding model is also missing in the article. What is good, what is perhaps not so good. Besides the primary sources, are there any other sources that deal with the content of IAPM's PM Guide? Unfortunately, I can't find very much external reception here. --Ilumeo (talk) 10:41, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.xing.com/communities/posts/iapm-vom-bund-anerkannt-1015554210
I don't think the article is about any model or guide but about the organization itself, your comment is not relevant in my opinion. Drawing comparisons with another organization within the article is not relevant to this article in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FreakyFridolin (talk • contribs) 11:48, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
People who get certified by this company should also know what they get certified in, no? --Ilumeo (talk) 13:46, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Decide what you want. Above you wrote that there is too much advertising and here you suddenly write that not enough is written about the certification and what belongs to it. You change your argumentation as it suits you, no matter what you have said before. If people want to know precisely what the certification is about, they should go to the IAPM website. In my opinion, what you want is marketing, and that's not what wikipedia is for.GilbertPotter (talk) 18:38, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then you didn't understand me correctly. Too much is written about the certificates and too little is written about the underlying model. In my opinion, a high-quality article first describes the content of a model in detail and then very briefly mentions that there is also the possibility of certification. At least that's my opinion (and a tip for writing good articles in general). However, in this case, there is not enough external reception to properly research this information and present it here. --Ilumeo (talk) 19:33, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I took time to read the mostly primary sources and the third party mentions all of which confirm that yes, it exists. However I cannot see anything about how IAPM contributes to the profession in the way that notable project management organisations such as PMI, APM, IPMA, Axelos (the PRINCE2 people) do. They just issues certificates and I have mostly concluded that this is a borderline diploma mill. I will also add (and feel free to dismiss this as WP:OR because it is purely personal opinion) that in the last 20 years of my career, during which I have employed well over 100 project managers and worked with many many more, I have never once seen anyone with an IAPM qualification. --10mmsocket (talk) 08:39, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bold third relist for further participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 15:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Three delete posts since you re-listed five days ago. Does that mean we now have enough to declare there is consensus? 10mmsocket (talk) 16:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is written like an extremely run of the mill brochure for the company. Which makes sense because 99% of it is based on primary references that literally serve that purpose. Unfortunately what's left that isn't primary doesn't seem to be any better either. Really the way the remaining none primary references are written I wouldn't be surprised if they aren't paid pieces or at least churnalism. Even if they aren't though, what they write about clearly goes against the of the notability guidelines for companies. The fact that Sharon Florentine from CIO, whoever she and they are, thinks this company has one of the top 13 project management certifications for 2020 is meaningless. We don't base the notability of a company on the word of some rando in a churnalism blog post and there's nothing else here that we can base it on. So there isn't a justifiable reason to keep the article. Also the fact that good faithed edits by established editors are repeatedly being removed from the article by COI editors is a major issue. There's zero point in having an article about this company if their paid editors are going to try and WP:OWN it by not allowing people without COI issues make good faith edits to it. Screw that. There's an established process for adding content to articles that people with COI issues should go through to do so and how it's happening in this article isn't it. Going by their defensive debate tactics in this AfD I doubt they would be willing to do things in the proper way. Nor should we encourage them or COI editors by keeping the article and allowing them to camp in it either. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:11, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: User:GilbertPotter, who has declared a conflict of interest in this article ([35]) and has passionately defended it against deletion, has been going agains the deletion policy (Wikipedia:Deletion policy) by inappropriately canvassing (specifically spamming) six uninvolved editors (see Wikipedia:Canvassing#Spamming and excessive cross-posting (diff1, diff2 diff3 diff4 diff5 edit6. However, I am inclined to assume good faith due to a possible unfamiliarity with Wikipedia polices as a new editor. I also note that none of the six users canvassed has participated in this debate. I did think it should go on record though. --10mmsocket (talk) 16:58, 7 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 no consensus (WP:NPASR). Ineligible for soft deletion due to past declined PROD. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Film Music Society

The Film Music Society (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 significant coverage and unreferenced. Fails WP:ORG. SL93 (talk) 23:44, 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) 01:32, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:57, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good Bad & Ugly

Good Bad & Ugly (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 reviews. The sources in the article offer little content to write an article (can only write the "Production" section and not the "Soundtrack" and "Release" sections). All of the sources in article are fairly short.

  • 1. Source 1 - Simply says the film is a thriller (film mentioned twice)
  • 2. Source 2 - Article about one of the actors in the film (contains information about the films the actor is shooting for) / Half of the article about another film called Karma Yodha. (film mentioned thrice)
  • 3. Source 3 - Article about one of the actors in the film (Last paragraph in article is about three different films) (This film mentioned once)
  • 4. Source 4 - Simply says the film is about harthal (film mentioned once) . Lists out the cast and crew. (Ex: Cinematographer is ... Music by ...)
  • 5. Source 5 - Passing mention (film mentioned once)
  • 6. Source 6 - Malayalam song database

Other sources found include this one (although it is a passing mention) and this one (good long source, although it may not be reliable). The lack of reliable reviews make writing an article difficult since none of the reliable articles are long.

Based on the sources, one can only write an article with the cast and crew listed and say the film is a "harthal thriller". No other information can be added. DareshMohan (talk) 01:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep clearly your overview of the sources includes incorrect and/or misleading information (assuming good faith, I would not say it's intentional). Too many "Simply"'s there, but just looking at the very first source from Sify, it doesn't "simply" say the film is a thriller nor does it mention it twice as you suggest above - the entire article (which might not be too long) is about the film! It gives information about the wrapping of the shooting, where it took place, who it was directed by and who it stars, credits to members of the crew, and above all, the film's story is presented in a separate paragraph. This is as good a source as any one could look for. You might have just used a simple search function for the title which is not a way to confirm a source is relevant. The same is true, for that matter, of the third source by The Times of India, it gives a lot of information on the film even though it's about the actor. All in all, I believe it is a notable film based on the sources. And even if it was just a passing mention, I wouldn't ignore it - non-notable films do not get this many passing mentions. Shahid • Talk2me 16:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 15:39, 7 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 no consensus verging on keep. Daniel (talk) 01:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carbon Health

Carbon Health (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)

Being one of the many firms distributing Covid test kits fails NOTNEWS & does not imply notability , and the other references do not meet WP:NCORP DGG ( talk ) 03:16, 13 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) 01:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are a few good reliable sources, such as Wired UK and the CBS affiliate. However, many of the sources cited are not reliable. A new page should be able to demonstrate notability with only a couple of reliable sources. At this moment, it is only a weak keep. Multi7001 (talk) 05:32, 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 01:58, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Driver of the Day

Driver of the Day (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)

Coverage of this golrified popularity contest is almost completley WP:ROUTINE and almost completley WP:PRIMARY. I therefore fail to see how this can pass WP:SIGCOV. SSSB (talk) 09:16, 13 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) 01:23, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 13:57, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sawyer-Barrow House

Sawyer-Barrow House (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)

Not seeing anything notable about this house. It exists and is old, but has no historic designation and I am not finding any true "in-depth" coverage. It appears that the builder/architect might be more notable that this particular house. MB 02:40, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most (probably all) of the sources attributed to Jack Barrow aren't attributed correctly. The book Architecture of the Western Reserve 1800-1900, for example, is by Richard N. Campen. - Eureka Lott 18:18, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was adding the references incorrectly. I mistakenly thought the first and last names were required to track who was adding the reference. I will fix them. Jbarrow51 (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- The house does have a historic designation which was awarded to it in in 1968 by the Heritage Home Committee of the Lake County Historical Society.[1] I will upload a photo of the letter received 08/19/21968 as a reference. Jbarrow51 (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Only a local designation does not suggest there should be significant in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. MB 17:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Lake County Historical Society". lakehistorycenter.pastperfectonline.com. Retrieved 29 November 2021.
  • Comment It was mentioned that a house can't be notable solely based on who the builder/architect might have been. I'd like to point out that of the 4 publications I've cited as references only one is devoted to the Builder. Two of the others recount the history of the City of Mentor, Ohio where it resides and the other is a work on northern Ohio Architecture. Unfortunately none of these sources are available online and copyright restrictions prevent me from uploading images of them myself. Is it possible maybe to share the information with a Wikipedia administrator outside of Wikipedia? Jbarrow51 (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Passing mentions are not significant coverage. Do any of these offline sources more than mention the house in a sentence here or there, or in a list or photo. Was the house actually written about? MB 17:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of the 4 publications I mentioned all have photographs of the house. In the Book on Johnathan Goldsmith the house has its own page with related text. The book "Mentor: First 200 Years" is an 11x8 inch hard bound 193 page work completed by the City of Mentor 20 years ago by local historians without my involvement. In it the house is displayed twice with photos and a couple paragraphs of text. Once as it relates to the early settlers from around 1820 and again for its role as one of the large estates that populated this region in the early 1900's. There is another magazine publication called "Country Homes" that was published in 1920's that has 10 photo's and 4 pages of text on the history of the house that go with them. However, I was given the pages without the rest of the magazine so I have no date or author's name. Which is why I've been reluctant to reference it in Wikipedia until I can do more research to find the complete source. Jbarrow51 (talk) 15:07, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There multiple sources locaed in the article and a simple search shows its designated an historical site in 1968. Its a pretty good article and I see zero grounds for an adf on this article. Super (talk) 03:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you evaluated whether any of the sources provide in-depth coverage necessary to meet WP:GNG? The historic designation in 1968 is not sourced in the article, and in any event was given by a county historical society. That is of highly local nature and does not automatically confer notability. MB 04:09, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find any coverage specifically on the house - the best two sources would be the local paper which I can't access talking about how the house was moved, but those can't save it on its own and I don't think a "Country Homes"-type magazine would necessarily convey notability. It simply appears this is a historic albeit non-notable house. If the architect has a page, it may be worth listing a small amount of the information there. SportingFlyer T·C 00:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:25, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. as with other historic house. We aren ot part of the Federal or State systems, and that is not a requirmeent for inclusion. DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Being recognized on a national or state historic registry means there is a presumption of meeting GNG. There is no such presumpton with local historic designations; GNG must be met by finding in-depth coverage in multiple independent RS. MB 04:35, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Explicit analysis of whether the sources available do or do not meet the GNG would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:23, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Interesting bit of local history, but I can't find any sources to back it up. It's not on the NRHP or any State list, I don't think it's worth including here. Could be a sub-section about the master builder, but he doesn't have an article either. Oaktree b (talk) 02:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If its an interesting bit of local history, then I feel it should be kept. Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER after all. If there is verifiable information here that would be better somewhere else in the encyclopedia as suggested above, then I feel that article should be created and the information merged there prior to this article being deleted. Otherwise, the information would be lost. NemesisAT (talk) 10:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not convinced that this specific house merits inclusion on Wikipedia at this time. Most of the sourcing discusses the architect, Mr. Sawyer, or general local news about construction and the house in modern times (i.e. a gas station being put onsite, etc). Most of the sources are also by one journalist and a lot of the house details in the article are unsourced original research. I do think that there should be a Wikipedia article about the architect, but, I am not convinced (even with my attempts at newspaper.com and other sources) that the house itself merits a full article. Missvain (talk) 05:11, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think it's notable as a beautiful historic building, although perhaps it should be reshaped into an article about the master-builder who built it as the sources are more focussed on him than the house. 1. The house itself was notable enough to be included in this book 2. Ficaia (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:38, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable as similar other buildings of Goldsmith are on the national registries so while this one is not so "noted" it is notable as is the architect/builder. Maybe a page for him and all his surviving buildings is the best, but the evolution to that doesn't come by first deleting articles and the source information. That "Most of the sources are also by one journalist" is not true: JBarrow51 made a mistake in putting his own name on the sources he intended to cite, as he explained above. Like me, he's a new editor and makes mistakes. I see the welcoming committee here didn't waste even two weeks before they AfD'd one of his first articles. I corrected all but 3 of the "JBarrow" sourcings: two are to newspapers (Painsville Telegraph and Mentor Monitor) which I don't have access to, and the third just links to wkrs.org main page and not a specific page on the site that supports anything in the article. Ohio History Center in Columbus has the 1961 issues of the Mentor Monitor: if you want to save this page, I'd hoof it over there and get the WP:SIGCOV people want to see.https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84028225/holdings/ BBQboffin (talk) 16:22, 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 delete. The negative assessment of the sources linked to by BobFromBrockley has remained uncontested. Sandstein 17:54, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary Communist Youth League (Bolshevik)

Revolutionary Communist Youth League (Bolshevik) (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)

Almost completely unchanged since its creation in 2009. Reads like a propaganda piece and should be deleted. Was considering G11, but this felt safer. Anarchyte (talk) 12:53, 13 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) 01:19, 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 no consensus. People disagree about the quality of the sources, including the newly-added ones. Sandstein 08:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alabama Renaissance Faire

Alabama Renaissance Faire (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 found no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 22:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • It really depends on how someone views local sources. To me, adequate would be substantial coverage out of the general area. The sources that you added are from Florence, Alabama where the fair is at or are trivial mentions. SL93 (talk) 00:11, 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) 01:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Despite my due diligence, I cannot find broader significant coverage outside of some promotional/advert stuff in local publications or passing mentions. Not enough to convince me this faire is notable enough to merit inclusion in Wikipedia at this time. Missvain (talk) 05:13, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sources seem sufficient to meet the notability guideline. Granted, they are positive and not critical, but they do contain some substantive information, but they don’t strike me as particularly promotional for coverage of a local festival.–Chaser (talk) 01:57, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:52, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect/Merge to Florence, Alabama#Festivals, where it is already briefly covered. As stated a couple times above, the sources are largely routine or promotional coverage, which does not really meet the WP:GNG as a stand alone article. However, it is already covered as one of the events on the main article on Florence - redirecting there, at the very least, makes sense, and some of the sources can probably be merged over there. Rorshacma (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Meets my reading of WP:GNG. Sources are plentiful and fine, and spread between TV, Magazines, and Newspapers. There is a substantial amount of coverage, as indicated by ten plus pages of google hits. It's also been around for 36 years, so there's that. Regards, GenQuest "scribble" 07:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note Bene: I have added additional wider-coverage references, partially re-written the article, and expanded it by 35%. There are a lot more untapped references and info out there. The article needs some more editing work and added content, not deletion. Was BEFORE even considered here? Wondering, GenQuest "scribble" 15:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GenQuest I don't appreciate WP:BEFORE being mentioned. My nomination said that I searched for references. Please AGF. On top of it, I am a long-time AfD contributor and most of my nominations have a delete consensus. I also see that Missvain had issues finding coverage as well. SL93 (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The recent addition of newer sourcing has helped make it credible.— Maile (talk) 01:13, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the sources that have been and have been added to the article demonstrating passing WP:GNG. Claiming this is of only "local" interest is not only not accurate, but the term "local" is so ambiguous. Local to just the town near the faire? To the counties adjacent to it? The entire state? In the latter's case, it's not just "local." Oakshade (talk) 22:25, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -I looked at this again to see if I was going to revise my delete vote...and I can't see any reason to. As far as the RS articles go, there are two links to local TV channels, there is a dead link to "rocketcitymoms.com"...the rest are general articles discussing festivals where it is just mentioned, (including on a list of 48 festivals to see in Alabama).. and links to its own website and some renfair page. There is no substantive independent RS substantiating this as being notable beyond the local level, and in fact, not even a lot of local material either. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:01, 1 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 no consensus. Lack of participation after multiple relists. RL0919 (talk) 04:22, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Marku

Mark Marku (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 significant coverage and citations. Nothing notable has been added since its creation in 2013. Fails WP:MUSICBIO Iaof2017 (talk) 12:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2013-10 move to → Mark Marku (politician)
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 29 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, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:54, 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 redirect to Albania in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2019. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isea Çili

Isea Çili (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 fails WP:MUSICBIO and didn't show her notability. Çili is a child singer who represented Albania at the Junior Eurovision Song Contest however, no notable events or projects have been following. Iaof2017 (talk) 13:00, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jochem van Hees: If I'm not mistaken, "Redirect" is not the same as "Delete", not sure. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mean it's not the same, but both mean that the article is no longer there. It's just a different way of doing it. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 17:00, 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. Daniel (talk) 15:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Florian Beqiri

Florian Beqiri (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:MUSICBIO. The child singer participated at Kënga Magjike and was featured as a artist on several project but there are no information on current events or upcoming projects. Iaof2017 (talk) 14:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:31, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_December_21&oldid=1061425834"