Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 February 7

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Supertanno (talk | contribs) at 14:42, 7 February 2022 (Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radha Mangeshkar (2nd nomination).). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< February 06 February 08 >

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. Liz Read! Talk! 07:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Radha Mangeshkar

AfDs for this article:
Radha Mangeshkar (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 topic of the article lacks notability, and the article itself reads like it was written by a marketing department. There's no reason for this article to exist in its current state. Supertanno (talk) 14:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:51, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The news coverage given is not enough. Should be deleted. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 02:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Of the five references, 2 are deadlinks, 2 are from what appear to be non-reliable blogs, and the other appears to be a PR writeup given that there is a marketing pitch as the end. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:53, 19 February 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 The Daily Wire#Podcasts and radio. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 (HAPPY 2022) 15:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Candace (show)

Candace (show) (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 previously opened a WP:PROD and I am still concerned about the notability of this topic. I am not suggesting that Candace Owens or The Daily Wire are not notable, but that this show is not notable as an independent subject and does not WP:INHERIT notability from its host, network, or guests. The current sourcing is very poor in regards to coverage related to the show specifically. Most of the sources are only WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of the show and instead are heavily focused on Candance Owens, The Daily Wire, or Donald Trump. For example, the Forbes article only contains one sentence that mentions the show. Most of the sources don't mention the show at all. For instance, the New York Daily News, Newsweek, CNN, and The Washington Examiner sources all discuss related topics such as Candace Owens, The Daily Wire, and Trump but never even mention a show or podcast let alone provide in depth coverage of the show. Sources like the first and second references from The Hill as well as the Black Enterprise are largely WP:INTERVIEW content, which means that they are primary or not independent of the subject.

The reliability of the current sources is also quite concerning. I would expect to see a few sources that have made it to WP:RSP as "generally reliable" or a few sources that are not on RSP but appear reliable. However, the reliability of The Washington Examiner, WP:NEWSWEEK, and WP:FORBESCON are all in question at RSP and as such likely do not contribute to notability even if they did mention the show. The reliability of OutKick and Black Enterprise have not been evaluated at RSP/RSN as far as I can tell. For OutKick, I can't find anything about an editorial board, mission statement, or even a list of staff and the parent company is simply OutKick Media. The site is at the very least a clearly partisan source and the author of this particular article is included on the site's list of "contributors", which is often mentioned at WP:RSP as potentially unreliable (WP:CONTRIBUTOR is relevant). The Black Enterprise source at least has an about page and a management staff page, however, I don't see "Cedric 'Big Ced' Thornton" listed as a member of the staff. The New York Daily News is at least listed at RSP as "generally reliable", but even that entry notes that editors "question the accuracy of its tabloid-style headlines" and the title in question is "Cardi B and Candace Owens threaten to sue each other in epic Twitter battle".

I also believe that WP:NOTNEWS is extremely pertinent. When looking for sources I find quite a few news stories about Trump and his stance on the covid-19 vaccine rather than discussion about what the show is, common topics of the show, how long an average episode is, how many episodes are there, what platforms is it available on, what are similar or related shows, or a review of the show as a whole. While reading the current sources it's unclear whether this is a podcast, radio show, television show, or only a youtube channel. Based on my searches for additional sources it appears that Trump's views on vaccines is more notable than this show. The whole interaction between Candace and Cardi B sounds like WP:NOTGOSSIP. I also think WP:ROUTINE is relevant considering the few sources that do discuss the show are mostly just announcing that the start of the show and Candace's move to The Daily Wire.

There was a merge discussion that ended in no consensus with very little evidence suggesting that the show is independently notable. I believe this topic is more suited for a section at both the articles for Candace Owens and The Daily Wire rather than an independent page. There has also been some discussion on the talk page regarding whether the content could be merged to Candace Owens or The Daily Wire. If any of the content is preserved I would suggest merging it to Candace Owens because the focus of the article is supposed to be on a show that she hosts and, given the name of the show, couldn't exist without her as the host. Whereas, The Daily Wire is the production company and most of the time news coverage of shows like this barely mention the production company, but The Daily Wire probably should have an entry for the show as well. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:35, 7 February 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. While on a simple nose count this would seem a "no consensus", none of the "Keep" arguments addressed the assertion that this article fails the GNG. With such an assertion, passing "NFOOTY" is not a relevant argument, and so is discounted. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Díaz (Chilean footballer)

Luis Díaz (Chilean footballer) (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 has been tagged for notability issues for 9 years, and was last edited in 2020 with little to no changes since. I cannot find evidence of notability for this football player even on Google. ES Wikipedia is a stub as well, with no sourced information to copy over. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 14:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a player of the Primera División (the main professional football league in Chile) I think they merit inclusion. I do concur with the thoughts about lack of references, though. I was not able to find any. Díaz seems to be a very obscure player, mostly known as Luis Eugenio Díaz (I suggest renaming the article). I found an article published by the Universidad Católica club which says he scored in a match between that club and Colo Colo, in 1997. That confirms they were in the Primera División and their article should be kept [1] However substantial effort may need to be undertaken in order to improve this article. Bedivere (talk) 04:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Sports SNGs say the subject needs to meet GNG. We do not have enough sources here to meet GNG, so we are obliged to delete the article. Wikipedia is not sportspedia, and we do not keep articles just to make sure we have full roster lists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, sources do exist. It's just that it's kind of difficult to find them since they are offline. --Bedivere (talk) 14:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG by a long shot, regardless of meeting NFOOTY per above. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 17:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 172 senior appearances in pro leagues, and a 10+ year career, this AFD is ridiculous.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant coverage provided or identifiable; fails GNG. Further, the article is currently a database entry - due to the only source being a database - so it violates WP:NOTDATABASE and thus needs to be deleted. BilledMammal (talk) 03:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hundred+ professional caps over many years? Easily meets NSPORTS. Nfitz (talk) 06:53, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I cannot find any online coverage (Spanish language or otherwise) that meets WP:GNG. The article is created entirely based on the BDFA.com.ar database entry (and the couple of sentences Bedivere found above: "Luis Díaz estuvo hasta 1999 en la UC, pasó por varios clubes pequeños, el 2002 llegó a Colo Colo pero no se consolidó. Se retiró el 2007 en Puerto Montt."). While WP:NFOOTBALL creates a presumption of notability for this type of article, there are simply insufficient sources available to write the article unless someone has access to offline sources that could support it. Since Díaz played during the internet-era, I'm already skeptical that the offline sources are going to being much more robust than the nearly non-existent online sources. Jogurney (talk) 15:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets NFOOTBALL by some way. Needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 18:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets NFOOTY as others have pointed out, likely to have offline and/or non-English sources. NemesisAT (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep passes WP:NFOOTY with over 172 caps in pro leagues and a 10 year plus career.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:NFOOTY (the low bar that it is). MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @MrsSnoozyTurtle: Per WP:NSPORTS, the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline. NFOOTY is a low bar, but fortunately that issue is partially addressed by the fact that they are still required to meet GNG. BilledMammal (talk) 11:26, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't find that quote on WP:NSPORTS NemesisAT (talk) 12:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    FAQ #2. Although, I thought you were already aware, as you were discussing it with Random Canadian here. BilledMammal (talk) 12:34, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for clarifying. That's a pretty ridiculous FAQ though given it is inconsistent with the guideline itself and with WP:N. It was written in 2013 so got to quesiton whether it still acurately summarises the guideline (both on its own and in relation to WP:N). Personally, I prefer to follow what is written at WP:N, where it clearly states passing either an SNG or GNG is sufficient for presumed notability. NemesisAT (talk) 12:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree, but if you believe that consensus has changed since 2013 I would suggest opening an RFC to change it. BilledMammal (talk) 12:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:NFOOTBALL. The article in its current state doesn't have much, but can be further expanded with text from Spanish Wikipedia and other languages. MaghrebiFalafel (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Spanish Wikipedia article is also a basic stub. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Child in the Night

Child in the Night (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 evidence that this meets WP:NFILM. No reviews or later critical commentary located on a search of Google, GBooks, Newspapers.com. PROD tag removed without improvement or comment. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The review on RT is from "blu-ray.com", which as a website has none of the hallmarks of reliability, including an editorial policy or staff page. There's also no indication that the author, Brian Orndorf, is a "nationally-recognized critic" as required by WP:NFILM. Although he has "Tomatometer" status on RT, that in itself is not indicative of national recognition - hundreds of critics have this status, and it's granted on application. If he were a Top Critic, that would be different - that's a rigorously screened subset of Tomatometer critics, and only critics who are "well-established, influential, and prolific" are designated "Top Critics", so I would happily accept that as indicators of national recognition. But simply existing as a listed critic is insufficient. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The one review from Rotten Tomatoes does not add towards the multiple reviews required. We need reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I found just enough coverage to justify a keep for this film. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per reviews added to article by Reader of the Pack. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, per above.--Surv1v4l1st ╠Talk║Contribs╣ 23:36, 10 February 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

St. Vincent Pallotti School

St. Vincent Pallotti School (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 school located in India. Article is unsourced, PROD removed by editor. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non Notable. Sources used are directories and sites for school admission, not WP:RS. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all the references in the article are either primary or trivial school directory listings. There's a couple of news articles out there that name drop the school, for instance one about the principal not admitting a kid with a pony tail, but none of them are any better then what's in the article. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable, no real information about the school. ArdynOfTheAncients 8:57, 10 February 2022
  • Delete: Fails WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. - Hatchens (talk) 13:05, 13 February 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. While we're at nearly a numerical alignment in !votes, the deletes have more policy behind them that are not numbers and search engine results. No one is doubting that mentions exist, however consensus is that the sourcing present and available does not meet the requirements for CORPDEPTH. Star Mississippi 03:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BeWelcome

AfDs for this article:
BeWelcome (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 per WP:NORG, and it doesn't meet WP:GNG. Each of the references is a trivial mention (one sentence or less out of a large article) except for one article in The Guardian, which may or may not be a puff piece. I looked for more sources before filing, and outside of some listicles where it's mentioned briefly among a dozen or so competitors, there's nothing out there. AlexEng(TALK) 10:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per WP:SNG --Geysirhead (talk) 12:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please clarify which part of the section WP:SNG you are basing your opposition on. The applicable SNG for BeWelcome is WP:NORG as I mentioned above. The subject does not meet WP:ORGCRIT, as I explained in the nomination. AlexEng(TALK) 17:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:EDITCON almost 15 years of existence and multiple languages, e.g., Talk:BeWelcome#Deletion nomination--Geysirhead (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please clarify further. You linked an unrelated page, which has nothing to do with WP:SNG and nothing to do with our deletion policy. Are you implying that old articles cannot be deleted? I am struggling to find another interpretation of what you wrote. The 2008 AFD had at least two WP:COI editors participating, and it did not reveal anything more than the one non-trivial mention (The Guardian piece I mentioned above), which may or may not be promotional. This fails today's WP:NORG, regardless of what the 2008 AfD says. To this day, the aforementioned Guardian piece is still the only non-trivial reference. One would think that after 14 years, another piece would appear for a notable organization, but alas... AlexEng(TALK) 02:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian and about 100 papers on Google Scholar--Geysirhead (talk) 08:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most of which appear to come no where near passing WP:SCHOLARSHIP for this topic.Unbh (talk) 16:43, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CIR Systematic review is required for such statements.--Geysirhead (talk) 13:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Geysirhead:Please remember to comment on content, not contributors. I reviewed the results for "BeWelcome" on Google Scholar, and I did not find any sources that could be used for notability. Multiple papers came up because of typos, e.g. ... Society of Clinical Pathologists that cooperative sessions would bewelcome at their meetings to discuss medical electronics problems. The rest appear to be trivial mentions or otherwise user-generated content. For example, this paper discusses data provided by BeWelcome at some length, but it is a single author submitting to arXiv. There is no peer review process. This is a WP:PRIMARY source and WP:UGC for the purposes of WP:NORG, and these types of sources cannot be used to establish notability. If you manage to find something useful, please mention it here. AlexEng(TALK) 03:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CIR More careful and neutral search is required to find (Ossewaarde&Reijers,2017) and other peer-reviewed papers.--Geysirhead (talk) 20:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed your repeated use of WP:CIR in a response to your message on my talk page. Here, I will address your citation of the Ossewaarde & Reijers paper. This is an anthropological research paper discussing in substance the concept of a digital commons. The authors use Wikipedia, Linux, Airbnb, Couchsurfing, and BeWelcome as examples of digital commons while discussing the illusion thereof. It's an interesting article, for sure, but it's not germane to this discussion of the notability of BeWelcome.org. If you manage to find some relevant papers, I'd be happy to read them as well. Thanks. AlexEng(TALK) 04:40, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This argumentation for deletion of Bewelcome sounds like What Have The Romans Ever Done For Us? by Monty Python. No source will ever be enough to convince. WP:Listen --Geysirhead (talk) 14:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, trivial coverage onlyUnbh (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

keep. It is currently the second biggest Hospitality Exchange network and the biggest non-commercial one. Arved (talk) 13:40, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That claim is unsourced, and that points reinforces the deletion argument - there are not sufficient sources to justify this article.Unbh (talk) 12:04, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That logically false claim that an unsourced argument reinforces the deletion argument weakens the deletion argument.--Geysirhead (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not logically false. It's pointing out that even such a straight forward claim can't aapparently be reliably sourced. That clearly undermines claims of notability.Unbh (talk) 02:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well I have been checking the Users numbers on all networks mentioned on Homestay#Services. CS: (12 or 14 Million https://about.couchsurfing.com/about/about-us/), BW 164.902(https://www.bewelcome.org/about/statistics), WS 166,424 https://www.warmshowers.org/country_count, TR 70.319 https://www.trustroots.org/statistics Servat (15k) , Pasaporto Servo (2293). So yes, since the user cleanup End of January WS is a little bigger than BW. But these numbers are so close to each other that they will soon change places again and we shouldn't delete the smaller one. Arved (talk) 08:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, this is just WP:BIGNUMBER and WP:NUMBER1, both of which are arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Regardless of how many users a site claims that it has (active or otherwise), notability is established by significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources. If there is no such coverage, then the subject generally does not require a standalone article. Some portions of it may be covered in a larger article, such as hospitality exchange. AlexEng(TALK) 09:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no notable coverage cited, only very brief passsing mentions and primary sources. It doesn't meet the criteria for a wikipedia article CT55555 (talk) 01:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CT55555: read WP:REPEAT--Geysirhead (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:REPEAT is about the same editor repeatedly making the same argument in a deletion discussion, not about other editors agreeing with or supporting that argument.Unbh (talk) 02:39, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Subaculture Keep There are dozens on peer reviewed articles about BeWelcome;

  • - Tagiew, Rustam. "Bewelcome. org--a non-profit democratic hospex service set up for growth." arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.8700 (2014).
  • - Delhibabu, R., Ignatov, D., & Tagiew, R. Hospitality Exchange Services as a Source of Spatial and Social Data?.
  • - Schöpf, S. (2015). The commodification of the couch: A dialectical analysis of hospitality exchange platforms. tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 13(1), 11-34.
  • - O'Regan, M. (2017). Doing Things Differently: Opening Cracks in the Tourism System. Tvergastein: Interdisciplinary Journal of the Environment, (9), 24-33.

BeWelcome is also scanned by Alexa (https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/bewelcome.org) Google Trends- https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=%2Fm%2F04gvxvf Articles - https://www.inputmag.com/features/rise-and-ruin-of-couchsurfing, https://www.bangkokpost.com/travel/275196/all-packed-up-and-many-places-to-go — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 10:30, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

every website is scanned by Google and Alexa - that's got nothing to do with it. More trivial mentions in poor quality sources.Unbh (talk) 11:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Subaculture If we delete on this basis, it would also mean the deletion of Warmshowers, trustroots and [Hospitality Club, Servas etc etc. Is the biggest brand, the most notable brand?

Those are almost equally poor articles, and there's probably an AfD to be had on Trustroots if not the other two.Unbh (talk) 11:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Subaculture Basically, this is one of the better sourced articles in the Category:Hospitality services. If we DELETE, we might as well as delete all articles under the series. BeWelcome is one of the few hospex sites with a large increase in numbers (4,000 members in 2008 to 180,000) in recent years and has been covered primarily in local European newspaper (Spanish, German etc). Just because of these articles are old sources, does not make them any less notable. — Preceding undated comment added 11:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Then provide the sources, rather than just saying they exist. User numbers are not relevant - per WP:BIGNUMBER as mentioned above — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unbh (talk • contribs) 12:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Subaculture - Additional Sources /mentions

all three are trivial mentions in articles about the sharing economy in general. It's not enough for WP:NORGUnbh (talk) 12:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They point to/ indicates the existence of multiple significant independent sources. Although yes, the mentions might contextualise larger topics. However, it indicates WP:NORG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subaculture (talk • contribs) 12:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Subaculture The main sense of WP:NORG rules are related to (self-)promotion of small companies at Wikipedia. The sense is not to remove articles about valid organizations. BeWelcome has existed since 2007. The WP:NORG rules should be used as an excuse to remove articles about small organizations. Other sources (German national papers/ reliable sources): 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Subaculture (talk • contribs) 12:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Subaculture I will be adding some of these reliable sources to the entry over the coming week.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, those are awful sources, even though the sites look good at first sight. (1) The one at Die Welt is by far the best, discussing over the course of several sentences how small BeWelcome is, compared to other such offerings. (2) Might be decent but it's a book I don't have; (3) Although I appreciate that WP can accept foreign-language sources, since BeWelcome claims to be globally-relevant, one wonders why it's necessary to resort to an Arabic-language version of a German publication to find something about it? (4) Mitteldeutschezeitung is a passing reference; (5) Netzwelt lists 35 other sites but doesn't even mention BeWelcome (as of today 7th Feb); (6) Stern is a single mention in passing. grouped together with another similar site; (7) Freie Honnefer is currently saying nothing except "Kleine Pause" which doesn't give much confidence in its solidity as a source. Based on that lot, I'm teetering on a delete here. I would not recommend including any of those (except possibly the book, if it's good) in the current article, as none contribute to the notability of BeWelcome, and only the first says anything meaningful whatsoever. Elemimele (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is the problem with nearly all the references . They're passing mentions in bigger pieces about the sharing economy, and particularly Couchsurfing.com. It's mentoned as an aside, or briefly in listicles.Unbh (talk) 05:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


peterburk Keep Another article about hospitality exchange, which mentions the open-source nature of BeWelcome and localised Russian translation;

  • - Клинкова, Татьяна. "Путешествие без расходов: как пожить бесплатно в другой стране." https://sgpress.ru/news/331199 (2022).

Thank you editors for attempting to keep Wikipedia safe from misinformation and bias; those are worthy causes for moderators to be involved in! As for the BeWelcome community, however, the zeal for clearing out may adversely affect our current reputations of mutual support and encouragement. Under WP:TRIFECTA "Remain neutral", "Don't be a jerk", "Ignore all rules", we should focus on unity, rather than dividing ourselves about definitions (e.g. the meaning of "notable", or number of users: BeWelcome stats, 132,255 Wikipedians). Therefore this conversation would be better if we focus upon what is best for the open-source community together. Should any of the editors prefer to debate using a video call, there are regular online activities (5 upcoming) and 28 face-to-face gatherings to meet other BeWelcome members where all are welcome, especially newcomers.

This Wikipedia page for BeWelcome has sufficient internal and external links, with only 2 degrees of separation from Wikipedia itself. It is not a widowed or orphaned page, therefore deletion seems excessive in this case. Rather, I propose that the WP:DP suggestion " for lack of verifiability" is appropriate.
Comment This seems an unusual and very detailed contribution from a 5 edit sleeper account...Unbh (talk) 06:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I commented above, but having considered the issue, I'm going to plump for Delete: the business-model is notable, but all the references appear to be talking about the business model, not BeWelcome specifically, and therefore confirm the idea that we're good to have an article on the business model, but don't currently need one on BeWelcome. If, in future, it suddenly generates a flurry of independent, in-depth news coverage, things may change. We're an encyclopaedia, not a business-listing. Elemimele (talk) 13:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I looked at all of the references that I could access and the vast majority were just name-checks - listing Bewelcome in a list of sharing services, but nothing really about the service, as in the NY Times piece which says only: "Private rentals through Airbnb have long been in the mainstream, and hospitality exchange sites like Couchsurfing and BeWelcome are thriving". The only one with more than that was the NYT piece [2] but on its own it doesn't rise to the level of NOTABILITY. I did a cursory web search, and also searched in Ebsco. In the former I found Bewelcome's own sites and a few mentions in travel web sites (pretty informal, not RS), and in the latter I only found Bewelcome's own press releases. I just don't see enough here, unless I overlooked something major. I'm willing to look at other sources if they are offered. Lamona (talk) 04:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Elemimele: "business model" It is a non-profit communication and reputation plattform connecting people worldwide, a hospitality exchange service (hospex). It is not a business. The first really successfull hospex was HospitalityClub.org. But, for-profit Couchsurfing.com somehow became a synonym for hospitality exchange and makes money out of people's strange need to host people for free. The guests pay 50 bucks and safe money on hotels, because some people even pay to host them for free. Is it altruism, loneliness, whatever. If somebody talks about websites like Bewelcome, they say "Couchsurfing", because Bewelcome is very similar in its functionality to Couchsurfing.com. The special thing about Bewelcome is its non-profitness, which is expressed in a couple sentences. Together with Warmshowers.org, they are the biggest non-profit HopPex websites and provide data for research. The specialty about Warmshowers.org is not only non-profitness, but also the scope on cycle touring. That is why it appears more often. @Lamona: "also searched in Ebsco" Ebsco does not find anything that Google misses. In addition to already mentioned papers:
  • Santos, Anderson. Citizens of the world: An autoethnography of couchsurfing and uncertainty reduction theory. Liberty University, 2014.
  • Лисеенко, А. А., & Ким, Т. М. (2017). Каучсёрфинг-альтернативный способ экономного путешествия по миру. In Исследование различных направлений современной науки (pp. 51-55).
  • Stoltenberg, Luise M. Authentizität im peer-to-peer Wohntourismus–Eine Untersuchung der Onlineplattformen Airbnb und Couchsurfing auf Grundlage einer Soziologie des Wohnens. Diss. Staats-und Universitätsbibliothek Hamburg Carl von Ossietzky, 2020.
  • Ossewaarde, Marinus, and Wessel Reijers. "The illusion of the digital commons:‘False consciousness’ in online alternative economies." Organization 24.5 (2017): 609-628.

--Geysirhead (talk) 23:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. I'm assuming all the sources are reliable and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization - but there's more requirements than that for establishing notability. 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. Not a single reference either mentioned above or in the article meet the criteria, most are name-checks which confirm the existence of the organization and nothing more. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 18:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keepstrike repeated !vote At least, this peer-reviewed paper [3] provides in-depth analysis of data on and of Bewelcome.--Geysirhead (talk) 10:04, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The content This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. I'm assuming all the sources are reliable and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization - but there's more requirements than that for establishing ... is brazenly copy-pasted into multiple discussions. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trustroots, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Harvin, and so on.--Geysirhead (talk) 17:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should take a look at WP:BLUDGEON? For anyone interested, Geysirhead tried it on at my Talk page first. Seems to not like other editors !voting to delete this article and appears to not like my posting largely the same message (a template message?) about why articles fail NCORP. Textbook ad hominen. HighKing++ 17:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's just not true now is it? You can download a PDF of the paper from here. The paper claims an objective of "determining the factors influencing its growth" and the paper itself analyses Google search volumes and "conversions" between three different organizations including BeWelcome. Section V is entitled "Insights for BW" and again is entirely focused on providing an interpretation on Google search data and a data set of 68,320 profile entries provided to the researchers by the topic company. Its "insights" show, for example, that over 75% of signed-up "customers" have an email from one of Google, Microsoft or Yahoo and that 41.7% of customers indicated to be female and that nearly 5,000 customers never logged in after signing up (but doesn't determine why). In summary, this paper is an analysis of the companies website traffic and messaging. All very interesting. But two points - the first is that even if you are inclined to accept this reference as meeting NCORP criteria for establishing notability, NCORP requires "multiple" references that each meet the criteria so on its own it isn't enough. The second and most important is that it is misleading to say this is an in-depth analysis of BeWelcome. It isn't, at least for meeting WP:CORPDEPTH criteria because it is an analysis of website traffic primarily based on data provided by the topic organization itself. HighKing++ 17:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good faith reestablished! Thank you for the done work of reading! Minor correction: "website traffic primarily based on data provided by the topic organization itself" -> and secondary Google's data. I could not find WP:CORPDEPTH excluding peer-reviewed papers. Peer-reviewed papers by non-anonymous authors can based on anything, even on secret data from from hell. Anyway, together with the Gardian article, it satisfies "multiple". Thumbs up, you will surely win next time. Seriously, I am happy.--Geysirhead (talk) 20:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you're having trouble understanding what is being said. CORPDEPTH requires deep or significant coverage which makes it possible to write more than a brief, incomplete stub about the topic organization. If the "peer reviewed" study was useful, then the useful information would appear in the article. Not only does the reference not appear, but I cannot see any possible useful in-depth information that could be included. As to the Guardian pieces, they clearly fail NCORP. The first is a brief mention, fails CORPDEPTH, plus relies on information from a "host" who is affiliated with the topic company. The second is a mention-in-passing towards the end of the article, fails CORPDEPTH. HighKing++ 20:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DAV Public School, Mahuda

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP The Banner talk 12:04, 7 February 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. Withdrawn by nom after sources found by DanCherek (non-admin closure) Onel5969 TT me 17:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Body Offering (novel)

Body Offering (novel) (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)

While the Hindu article is a nice review of the book, could not find any others. Redirected to author, but ip insists on recreating the page. Not adverse to rescinding nom if someone finds more reviews. Onel5969 TT me 12:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:14, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oberoi Realty

Oberoi Realty (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)

failks ncorp: the reference are either routine notices or promotional DGG ( talk ) 11:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:19, 14 February 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 OKCupid. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy Blind Date

AfDs for this article:
Crazy Blind Date (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)

Tenuous notability at best. Most references are opinion pieces, cursory reviews or public relations-fueled pieces. The website is written about briefly in the book Dataclysm (where the content on it is self-published), where it is noted that it was only online for a couple of months in 2010 before being shut down again. Together with the terrible sources and the unencyclopedic tone, the subject arguably falls a bit foul of WP:NOTNEWS. If there is any place to discuss this website, it is in the history section of OKCupid, which this platform was later incorporated into. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Jeffers, Glenn (2008-09-12). "Crazy Blind Date". Herald News. Archived from the original on 2022-01-31. Retrieved 2022-01-31 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "This latest in online match-and-meet sites boasts almost instantaneous results. ... The dates require little commitment; they top out at 30 minutes. ... Log in and you're quickly given a choice of date, either solo or double (you can choose both), and day, as early as today if you want. You also choose your city, time of date, neighborhood, form of notification (text or e-mail), type of venue (bar or coffeehouse) and personal preference (men or women)."

    2. Goldstein, Meredith (2008-01-15). "The website Crazy Blind Dates give you dates on demand". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on 2009-12-23. Retrieved 10 July 2009.

      The article notes: "Unlike such sites as Match.com and JDate.com, there's no browsing through pictures or looking for a partner with similar tastes. But that raises a question: Is an insta-date a quality experience? Can it spawn insta-love? We tagged along on some Crazy Blind Dates over the past few weeks."

    3. Bachko, Katia (2008-03-13). "A New Net Matchmaker: Crazy Blind Date". The Berkshire Eagle. Columbia News Service. Archived from the original on 2022-01-31. Retrieved 2022-01-31 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Called Crazy Blind Date, the recently launched Web site eliminates online profiles and sets up users on blind dates, sometimes in as quickly as a few hours. ... He launched the free site last November, and it now has 10,000 members, who he said have gone on 90,000 blind dates. ... Crazy Blind Date, on the other hand, requires no such sifting through profiles and messaging back and forth. This means users have little time to build up unreasonable expectations that may be dashed to pieces when reality bites."

    4. Bercovici, Jeff (2013-01-22). "Crazy Blind Date Not So Blind Anymore, Thanks To Hack". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2022-01-31. Retrieved 2022-01-31.

      The article notes: "Kevin Hjelden, a programmer who goes by the nom de web FryGuy and blogs on a site called Burnt Popcorn, has written a program that turns the digitally scrambled headshots of Crazy Blind Date users back into recognizable portraits. ... Although "Blind" is right there in its name, it's not clear how central that aspect might be to the user experience. The primary purpose of the app, which some 130,000 people have downloaded so far, is to get people to spend less time snooping each other's profiles and more time actually going on low-investment first dates. Knowing what the person you're meeting looks like wouldn't necessarily be an obstacle to that."

    5. Bercovici, Jeff (2013-01-15). "Would You Go On a Crazy Blind Date? OK Cupid Thinks So". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2022-01-31. Retrieved 2022-01-31.

      The article notes: "In truth, the most radical part of Crazy Blind Date (whose name and basic concept OK Cupid toyed with in an earlier form more than five years ago) may be the way users are asked to express their satisfaction or lack thereof. After a date's conclusion, the participants are invited to rate each other by purchasing "kudos." Spending a few dollars implies that a date was enjoyable, or at least that one's partner might be a good catch for someone else; spending nothing says you wouldn't want to be set up with someone like that again."

    6. Quirk, Mary Beth (2013-01-15). "OKCupid Resurrects "Crazy Blind Date" Service Because You Should Be On A Date Right Now". Consumerist. Archived from the original on 2022-01-31. Retrieved 2022-01-31.

      The article notes: "That dating model kinda petered out, perhaps because there weren’t enough users signed up for such craaaazy blind dates. But according to Jeff Bercovici of Forbes, the co-founder of OKCupid is ready to roll again with an updated Crazy Blind Date app."

    7. Gerstein, Julie (2013-01-15). "Would You Let OKCupid Set You Up On A Blind Date?". The Frisky. Retrieved 2022-01-31.

      The article notes: "If all this is giving you the creeps, well, you’re not alone. The idea of meeting up with a total stranger with so little information (and none of the personal verification a close friend or colleague might provide in a “real world” blind date scenario) sounds incredibly dangerous. And if not dangerous, well, then, sort of a waste of time. As any woman who’s spent any time on the site can attest, women get bombarded with messages from completely inappropriate suitors all the time. Which is to say, most women have very little faith in OKCupid’s powers of accuracy. Plus, you don’t even have to have an OKCupid profile to use the service — which means there’s even less vetting than normal."

    8. Filipovic, Jill (2013-02-07). "Three Crazy Blind Dates With OkCupid's New App: Can the internet make blind dating any less painful?". BuzzFeed News. Archived from the original on 2022-01-31. Retrieved 2022-01-31.

      The review notes: "And while a dating profile won't alert you to all of a person's potential issues, it can raise some red flags that will help you avoid a real creep. Going on a Crazy Blind Date offers none of that."

    9. Moscaritolo, Angela (2013-01-15). "OKCupid Launches 'Crazy Blind Date' App". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2022-01-31. Retrieved 2022-01-31.

      The article notes: "Once the app has found a compatible date, it will send a confirmation to both parties. Here's the catch: the app scrambles up users' photos, so you won't get a good look at the person with whom you're meeting – and they won't get a good look at you. One hour before the scheduled date, Crazy Blind Date will open up an anonymous IM window so you can easily find your date."

    10. Wortham, Jenna (2013-01-15). "OkCupid Wants to Send Members on a 'Crazy Blind Date'". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2022-01-31. Retrieved 2022-01-31.

      The article notes: "Crazy Blind Date is not a new idea for Mr. Yagan. Back in 2007, he worked on an earlier version of the service that was Web- and text-based. It folded after failing to gain traction. "

    11. Coldewey, Devin (2013-01-15). "Want to go on a blind date? OKCupid's new app hooks you up in a hurry". NBC News. Archived from the original on 2022-01-31. Retrieved 2022-01-31.

      The article notes: "There are two problems here. First, if the date went well and you want to go on another one, it seems like you'd want to rate your date poorly so that they don't end up on other dates. Yes, it's dishonest, but all's fair in love and war. Second, kudos cost money. In other words, you have to pay to give your date a good review — so they can go on more dates with other people!"

    12. Ngak, Chenda (2013-01-15). "OkCupid launches "Crazy Blind Date" app". CBS News. Archived from the original on 2022-01-31. Retrieved 2022-01-31.
    13. Netter, Sarah (2008-02-12). "Your Best Bet for Love? Timing". ABC News. Archived from the original on 2008-06-23. Retrieved 10 July 2009.
    14. Farr, Christina (2013-01-22). "Why I'm dumping OkCupid's blind dating app". VentureBeat. Archived from the original on 2022-01-31. Retrieved 2022-01-31.

      The article notes: "It’s a nice idea in theory, but when OkCupid introduced a similar blind dating service in 2007, it was a complete bomb. People weren’t all that comfortable meeting a complete stranger from the Internet with only a name, age, and scrambled photograph to go on."

    15. Foxton, Willard (2013-04-03). "28 Dates Later by Willard Foxton: Part Twelve, Crazy Bland Date". New Statesman. Archived from the original on 2022-01-31. Retrieved 2022-01-31.

      The article notes: "All you can see about the other person is one sliced up photo of them, and your OK Cupid match percentage. Hence, “Blind Date”. Unfortunately, what adds the “Crazy” is the fact that the match percentage is a somewhat blunt tool, and you know *literally nothing else* about the other person. For an example of how wrong that can go, here’s an example of conversation between two people who are (in theory) 92 per cent matches:"

    16. Chafkin, Max (2008-05-01). "Their Online Dating Site was Struggling. Was a blind-date stunt really the answer?". Inc. Archived from the original on 2022-01-31. Retrieved 2022-01-31.

      The article quotes from three experts: Sam Ewen (CEO of Interference), Gary Kremen (founder of Match.com), and Theresia Gouw Ranzetta (general partner at Accel Partners). The quote from Gary Kremen says: "A dating site can succeed only if it attracts a lot of women, and that's the problem with CrazyBlindDate. For any dating site, women, not men, are the customers. Women don't want a crazy blind date; they want safety and security, and they don't want to feel embarrassed. I would take the money they're spending on PR and put it toward affiliate marketing to women. Yagan and Coyne are clearly smart guys: They should start thinking about how to lower the cost of customer acquisition and build a differentiated audience."

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

    Cunard (talk) 11:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Notability is not temporary, and there is sustained coverage about the subject in the months after it was established and reestablished which means that WP:NOTNEWS does not apply. The subject received international coverage in the New Statesman (link). Numerous journalists tried the Crazy Blind Date app and shared their thoughts about it in their reviews. Some of the journalists' thoughts were very negative. The considerable analysis and coverage is enough to support to a standalone article about the subject. It would be undue weight to merge this material to OkCupid. Cunard (talk) 11:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crazy Blind Date participants: Trevor Marron (talk · contribs) and Fences and windows (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 11:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Barely any of these sources approach serious, reliable content. Most are either conversational-style opinion pieces, literal dating reviews, or self-evident re-prints of press release materials (e.g. here, or see anything that had the word "launches" in the headline - dead give away). Not a single one of these pieces discusses the subject from a serious, analytical news perspective, so they are the weakest of the weak in terms of secondary sourcing, and quite a few are at least partially based on an interview, so primary. At least half of the platforms are also not perennial reliable sources. The Inc article, a reprint of a Bloomberg Businessweek piece, is the closest to a serious, secondary business piece on the subject, so I make that a count of precisely one halfway decent source. I agree that it should redirect to OKCupid (as per the note by Ravenswing), as the service was launched by and was always a part of OKCupid and so can quite duly sit within an article on that company (where it already is). Iskandar323 (talk) 12:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At least half of the platforms are also not perennial reliable sources." – I do not agree with this assessment. Aside from The Frisky (which I am unfamiliar with), all of these sources are reliable sources. "Conversational-style opinion pieces" of journalists' reviews of Crazy Blind Date can be used to establish notability under Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Product reviews. I maintain that there is enough material and coverage to support standalone notability and a standalone article. Cunard (talk) 12:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, but looking at the Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Product reviews guideline in detail, it also specifically notes how such material "must be handled with great care and diligence" as "many reviews are not independent" and that tech-related reviews are typically "more prone to manipulation by marketing and public relations personnel", in line with precisely what I am seeing here with some of the pieces, and certainly examples such as the part-sales pitch, part-interview PCmag article. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect any reliably-sourced content to OkCupid#History. It seems like most of the sources provided above relate to OkCupid's acquisition of and subsequent activities as the parent of Crazy Blind Date, so I don't think there is standalone notability to warrant an article. However, there is enough to add to the single sentence about it presented at the target article. Granted, some of the sources aren't the greatest, but selective use of what is presumably reliable without resorting to refbombing looks doable. --Kinu t/c 18:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge per the evidence from Cunard. I understand users on Wikipedia have been skeptical about certain reputable publications having their credibility hijacked by PR conflicts of interest, but can someone tell me what proportion of the sources were PR? The Forbes sources, for example are editorial and written by staff, so WP:FORBESCONTRIBUTOR definitely does not apply. Also, Kinu is kind of wrong in stating the acquisition and its related activities are most of the topic's coverage. There's the reviews Cunard provided plus a Forbes piece of the vision of the site from the individual behind it (and no, it's not an WP:INTERVIEW just because it uses interview quotes, it's a fully written piece with interview quotes here and there) 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 19:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    100% disagree about the Forbes pieces - on is a piece that is clearly based almost solely on an interview with the founder, and the other is an editorial opinion piece referencing that same interview, using the very words "in my interview..." Iskandar323 (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not how it works. A piece written by an independent author, with his own prose of the site, being "based" on an interview (by the fact that it incorporates interview info even if it's paraphrasing or the quotes are interspersed) is not the same thing as a source where the transcript of the interview is the entire page (meaning with no written content from another author), which WP:INTERVIEW prohibits. This part of the essay makes that clear: "At the other end are interviews that show a depth of preparation, such as those that include a biography. An interview presented as investigative journalism of the sort we associate with 60 Minutes can be helpful. In these interviews, the interview material is often interspersed with the interviewer's own secondary analysis and thoughts." 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 02:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe I minced my words too much, but that entire article is quite clearly the bare minimum paraphrasing of the input from the subject and extremely primary in nature - there is barely a shred of any secondary analysis at work. Judging by the overall tone of the piece, I would not be surprised if it was paid. But no matter, we clearly just have different editorial standards. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG with reliable sources indicated by Cunard. ASTIG️🎉 (HAPPY 2022) 14:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to OKCupid, as per nom. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:44, 22 February 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. Modussiccandi (talk) 12:11, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Groep fan Auwerk

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

Fails WP:GNG. Looks a bit like selfpromo. Recreation of an earlier removed article. The Banner talk 11:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep I found one extensive source on the "free Frisian" movement that talks about this group: "The Frisians as an Indigenous Minority Group within a Unified Europe", but I didn't find other sources. It is possible that this can replace the non-independent sources in the article, which might bring it up to "barely keep". Also, I didnt find the Leeuwarder Courant article that is poorly cited in the article. Finding that could be helpful. Lamona (talk) 19:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I usually agree with the nominator but this group received so much coverage in the Leeuwarder Courant [9] that I cannot agree with this one. Agree that this article needs cleaning up. gidonb (talk) 16:56, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • With all due respect, but most of these articles are about their actions (commemorations, Frisian language placename signs, Frisian flags etc.) and not about the group itself. The Banner talk 17:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the development and promotion of shared histories, symbols, signage, and proposals for political divisions of space core business for a nonviolent separatist group? gidonb (talk) 19:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. According to another editor: individual protests not relevant. The Banner talk 23:21, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kudos for this cleanup. Precisely what I suggest. I agree that this list of all their campaigns was not helpful. The more important ones are mentioned in the history and were justifiably not removed, so this is redundant. Furthermore, the dates these reports went out are not historical dates. In addition to this cleanup, the flag business needs clarification and the list of possible Frisian territories, just rehashes stuff elsewhere. Can be deleted as well. Low German has gotten this right. gidonb (talk) 00:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yout

Yout (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)

Hoax article per talk page Dronebogus (talk) 10:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If you look at WP:NOT, it will tell you that this online encyclopedia is not a place to create hoaxes, even for articles should not be made that way. If one were to create a article, he or she would have to make sure to not place any hoaxes as it is considered a violation. --Vaco98 (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the references to Norse and the Edda are meaningless as Finland was not a Norse country. Good catch. If you want a laugh, look at the very first version of the page. Geschichte (talk) 12:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and send to WP:HOAXLIST as the article has existed since 23 August 2007, but was turned into this hoax bull on 11 November 2012 wizzito | say hello! 22:29, 9 February 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 withdrawn. ✗plicit 12:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Option consommateurs

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

there do not appear to be any third party sources DGG ( talk ) 10:48, 7 February 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 Invalid nomination. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion is thataway. Stifle (talk) 14:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

George Traut Austin

George Traut Austin (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)

While I can somewhat understand having redirects to wiktionary (as dicdefs are out of scope, but can be useful for jargon), why would we redirect for biographies? Either a person is notable, and should have an article here; or they aren't notable, but then we shouldn't outsource to a different site with different standards. This seems like a backdoor mechanism to have biographies of people included without having to care about our policies. It also obscures what would otherwise be redlinks iff the person is notable. Fram (talk) 10:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated for the same reason are all other similar pages:

  • Venue innapropriate - All of these pages are redirects (soft redirects). Thus, the proper venue is redirects for discussion. That aside, you seem to be taking an issue with Template:Wikispecies redirect, for which the proper venue would be Templates for discussion. However, a discussion there regarding it quite a while back did not yield any fruit. Thus, I would suggest a wider community venue for the matter if desired. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 11:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, this is not about the template, which seems more logically intended to be for species (just like the Wikt redirect are for words, not for lexicographers). The discussion you link to was from 2017, before any of the above redirects even existed. Fram (talk) 11:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Fram: I created the template, and that was not its intention. That aside, you did not address my main point. These are redirects. Not articles. Thus, this is clearly the wrong venue. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 11:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, the intention of the template was "This template is only for entries that currently exist on Wikispecies and which, due to previous re-creations, are likely to be re-created in unencyclopedic form. Do not place it on every possible title." None of the above entries seem to match that intention though. Fram (talk) 11:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ostensibly, sure (that was copied from a guidance page years ago; e.g. documentation often lacks and falls out of date). Happy to explain the theory and reasoning behing these (and the template; along with a note on the nature and history of the template), in a proper venue. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 11:39, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This does seem to be a RfD topic and not an AfD. That said, I agree with nom. Redirects like this should be pointed to articles on en.wiki. If there is no suitable article because someone is non-notable (not even in a list or related article) then we should not have that redirect pointing to another site. Gonnym (talk) 11:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Creator of Dugdale's page here; he was on Special:WantedPages (or a similar page) in 2019, so I decided to create a soft redirect to Wikispecies rather than create a full article since I didn't know enough about him or his notability. To the nominator's point, though, I think that if soft redirects are inclusion-worthy for dicdefs that can be referenced throughout enwiki's pages, I think soft redirects to sister projects, which are not "other/different sites" pace nom and Gonnym, should be easily generalizable, especially if the biography is that of a specialist like Dugdale; biologists interested in learning more species by Dugdale can click on his link and be duly redirected, to give a use case. So, ultimately keep in general, though I haven't clicked on any specific nominees to verify individual usability. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:13, 7 February 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 Gameplay. ✗plicit 12:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Player (game)

Player (game) (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 stumbled upon this after from ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Contestant. At first, I thought about proposing a merger to much better Gamer, but the sourced content is just a common-sense definition for the sentence that "most games require players" (really? and most? Well, I guess there are zero player games but sigh). There is also player (sport) that I redirected to Athlete. In summary, this article seems like a poor quality, essentially unreferenced stub fork of gamer and should redirect there. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:15, 7 February 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. If users believe a redirect to Contest, where the term is not mentioned, is worthwhile, they are free to create one. ✗plicit 12:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Contestant

Contestant (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)

Dictionary definition. Mostly just gives examples of competitions. Also, completely unreferenced. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 09:49, 7 February 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. Liz Read! Talk! 04:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjeev Bikhchandani

AfDs for this article:
Sanjeev Bikhchandani (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 advertorially toned BLP on an unremarkable businessperson. Significant RS coverage not found. Article cited to online directories, passing metions, WP:SPIP or other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Created and edited by a number of blocked socks; Iamishwar (talk) 09:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:36, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: as per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 17:17, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't think the Padma Shri is enough on its own to meet WP:ANYBIO #1: it's only the fourth-highest civilian award, and there have been over three thousand recipients. But although it's difficult to evaluate the reliability/independence of some of the coverage, I do think there's probably enough for Mr. Bikhchandani to pass WP:BASIC/the GNG. Here's some coverage in Mint, which per RSN is reliable for business in India. Forbes India has had two pieces on Bikhchandani, both of which were written by staff; although they're definitely uncritical, I can't really say that they lack reliability or independence. Here's some Hindi-language coverage from Asianet News, which appears to be reliable; Business Today has had some as well. There are many more sources out there, at least some of which likely are reliable and independent, but I think these should be enough to show notability. If someone familiar with the Indian press would like to explain why these sources are unreliable/non-independent/otherwise problematic, I'd be glad to listen, but until then I'm fairly confident that this billionaire is genuinely notable. Since the article isn't nearly in bad enough shape to necessitate WP:TNT deletion, any problems with promotion or sockpuppetry can be dealt with through the normal processes; deletion is not cleanup. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 04:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • User:Extraordinary Writ, this is very difficult but there are good reasons why most Indian news sources are problematic. The matter is well explained in our article on Paid news in India but the essence of it is that most Indian news sources (a) accept payment for positive coverage and (b) don't disclose when they've been paid. Of the various newspapers we like The Hindu (WP:THEHINDU) and The Indian Express (WP:INDIANEXP), and we don't like any of the others. Of course, that's an issue because it creates a double standard: we like most of the sources from Western democracies. So we describe the US using US sources and Britain using British sources but we don't describe India using Indian sources. It's pure systemic bias, and it reduces the amount of Indian topics that we can cover, but I think it's probably better than allowing articles based on unreliable sources.—S Marshall T/C 11:57, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, I don't doubt that we ought to look at Indian sources with a much more jaundiced eye than we do for sources from highly developed countries: although it's unfortunate, there's really no other choice if we don't want to be overrun by spam. But even if we limit ourselves to the crème de la crème of the Indian press – for instance, the twenty-some-odd RSN-vetted sources listed as reliable at Wikipedia:New page patrol source guide#India – there's still probably enough coverage to establish that Bikhchandani is notable: see [11] (The Indian Express), [12] (Financial Express, [13] (Business Standard), and [14] (Mint). And there is some coverage from outside India: not enough to establish notability on its own, perhaps, but still enough to confirm that there's some substance to the Indian coverage. The Financial Times states that he's "lauded by entrepreneurs in India as the founder of one of the most successful start-ups" [15], there's BBC coverage, and he's briefly mentioned in an American book published by Wiley. Your broader point about the problematic nature of the Indian press is well taken, but, at the risk of sounding naïve, I think there's still room for a nuanced attempt to separate the wheat from the chaff. Best regards, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mümtaz Turhan Social Sciences High School of Istanbul

Mümtaz Turhan Social Sciences High School of Istanbul (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 has been un-referenced since at least 2015, I couldn't find anything in a WP:BEFORE when I looked except a few trivial name drops in a couple of blogs, and high schools are not inherently notable. So I'm nominated this article for deletion. That said, I don't speak Turkish. So there could be references out there that I just missed due to not speaking the language. Adamant1 (talk) 09:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

E.C.A. Elginkan Anadolu Lisesi

E.C.A. Elginkan Anadolu Lisesi (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 has been un-referenced since at least 2011, I couldn't find anything in a WP:BEFORE that works for notability, and high schools are not inherently notable. So I'm nominating this for deletion on the grounds that it fails WP:GNG and/or WP:NORG. Adamant1 (talk) 08:59, 7 February 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. Although numbers are similar on both sides, the keep arguments get less weight because we have "keep because she is notable", a misunderstanding of the mainly British usage of Hon Sec in a society, and zero weight for "keep because such and such a person created the article". Late calls to merge/redirect don't have much support, but as usual, anyone can request a WP:REFUND without reference to me if they propose to merge what little content is there. Stifle (talk) 14:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Netta Ivory

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

Fails WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is not exactly accurate - as best I could piece it together, in 1902 she co-founded the Scotland branch of the English organization, based in Edinburgh. In about 1905, she and her sister engineered the founding of a satelite Scottish branch in Aberdeen, and then in 1911, they reconfigured the Scottish branches into a new Scottish Society, still affiliated with the English organization but now within its own national structure, with the Edinburgh (formerly Scotland) branch leadership apparently becoming the overall national leadership. This is what eventually became the fully-independent OneKind, which chooses to trace its history to the 1911 reconfiguration engineered by the Ivorys. Thus, in a very real sense, she did 'co-found the organization' if one means OneKind. I still don't think that is enough to make her notable (founding what would eventually become a notable non-profit is not itself an independent notability-confering act, in my opinion), but what she did was more consequential than 'just founding a branch'. Agricolae (talk) 01:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I think she is notable as per WP:Notability, but still a weak keep is what I suggest. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 15:38, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps you could be more specific - On what basis does she satisfy WP:Notablity? Agricolae (talk) 16:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning keep. Subject was respected enough in her field to be named honorary secretary of the organization in her eighties. BD2412 T 16:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's obscene, how many tens of thousands of organizations are there that recognize their own members in all sorts of ways? That's not how notability is determined on Wikipedia. The source [16] is the barest possible passing mention. OneKind has has many leaders and honorees in its history, and they can be discussed in that article. Reywas92Talk 17:39, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not an honor - in calling her 'honorary secretary' it is just reflecting that her role as secretary is not a formal one (for example, it is not a defined role in the society's charter). Agricolae (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, "Honorary" just means "unpaid", ie a voluntary post, with no implication of it not being a formal post in the organisation's constitution. It distinguishes a volunteer, one of the leaders of the organisation, from a paid employee in the organisation's office. PamD 08:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • The point is the same - the title 'honorary secretary' is not an awarded honour. Agricolae (talk) 16:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm aware of that, but it is one reported in the news coverage of the organization. BD2412 T 00:13, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • It is not reported in the news coverage of the organization that this was an honour. The cited coverage, after reporting the content of a press release from the organization, adds the sentence: "Netta Ivory is honorary secretary" simply parroting her own typical style of signature, as "Netta Ivory, Hon. Sec." That is no basis for notability. Agricolae (talk) 02:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: urging some caution on the delete front: I can find more passing mention for her in historical newspapers than I've been able to find for many people from a similar time frame who have been saved at AfD by people with better historical newspaper-fu than me, so I strongly suspect there is more about her than I've been able to turn up. Also, her unmarried name is Ivory - I have no idea if she married or not, but if she did, she will almost certainly have changed her last name, complicating the search. I found several passing mentions in The Gentlewoman and Modern Life, enough to suggest to me that she would be notable by present-day standards, and she frequently turns up in hits in The Scotsman in the 1930s. -- asilvering (talk) 18:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, after I say that I turn up a classified ad put out by her sister after her death that confirms that she did not change her name and probably did not marry; I've clarified her name in the article. Maybe someone else can do more. -- asilvering (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of the examples I am seeing are just the same single press release repeated in multiple papers. Agricolae (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's my memory of the Scotsman coverage I found, but not the Gentlewoman and Modern Life stuff. But the latter is certainly not enough for a keep vote. To rephrase my point: I'm certain there are more sources I haven't found, but I'm not certain those sources would push her into a WP:GNG pass. With the sources we have so far she doesn't even look borderline. -- asilvering (talk) 21:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While others may argue about WP notability guidelines, I see that SlimVirgin created the article. That's sufficient validation for me. – S. Rich (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is among the most worthless arguments I've ever seen at AFD. SlimVirgin wrote many admirable articles, but other creations I see lacking in notability include Nicolas Atwood (which could be merged with his website Bite Back), Claire Starozinski (sourced to a self-published book on bullfighting; could be merged with her organization Anti-Corrida Alliance), David Leppard, Jack Fischel (a basic resume, unclear if he meets WP:NPROF), André Tylee, Susan Finsen, Alexis Shotwell, Stanisław Kłodziński, Paul Lawrence Rose (zero independent sources), Gerry Mackie (just one independent source, a book review), and Angus Taylor (philosopher) (zero independent sources, no claim to pass NPROF). Not saying I'd AFD all these, but I'm sure the closing admin is smart enough to disregard a vote that does not bother to address the article itself. Reywas92Talk 20:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll admit I was floored by that comment too. The reason why most others focus on WP notability guidelines is because that is the deciding factor, not because you like someone who wrote the article. KoA (talk) 02:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 'Hon. Sec. of the Scottish Anti-Vivisection Society' is not a "well-known and significant award or honor" (WP:BIO) - it was a position that she seems to have occupied from the time the group was founded - in 1905 she was hon. secretary, her sister was hon. treasurer. Though the article makes it sound like a local branch officer was honored by the national organization, there is no distinction between the two - she was Hon. Sec. of the Scottish branch (located in Edinburgh), one of 38 Branches of the England-based society, and continued in that role when the Scottish branch became the semi-autonomous Scottish Society under the same leadership. And no, being secretary of such a society is insufficient, in and of itself, for notability. None of the sources give her more than passing mention: 1. is non-WP:RS and entirely non-selective (being dead is the sole criteria for inclusion); 2: simply has a one-sentence reference to the society that names her and Coleridge as founders (she isn't even subject of the sentence); 3. is reporting on a press release that she put out, and at the end mirrors her typical signature, 'Netta Ivory, Hon. Sec.', by stating that she is honorary secretary; 4. is basically the newsletter of the England-based organization reporting that she attended their national meeting, placing her in societal context as daughter of Lord Ivory, and telling us that she "favoured Brown with a white hat". Further searches turn up nothing both independent of the society and more substantial than a single sentence that she was a co-founder. That is not notability, not even close, no matter who created the page. Agricolae (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've been poking around on this one for a bit without commenting so far, but Agricolae summed it up better that I could. She only has two claims in the article: 1. Co-founder of a local branch society in Edinburgh, 2. getting the honorary secretary recognition. Neither really rise to any particular BLP notability. Stubs usually have key claims to fame that stick more than those, and as Agricolae mentioned, the other mentions are also just passing mention. KoA (talk) 02:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • At the risk of beating a dead horse: "getting the honorary secretary recognition" (emphasis added). Anyone who has been a member of a small organization knows that someone can be placed on a slate of officers, even for many years, for all kinds of reasons - they are good at that particular administrative skill/it is similar to what they do in professional life; not good at it, but everyone too polite/willing to 'go along to get along' to try to replace them; nobody else is willing to take it on; sheer inertia - let's just reappoint whoever has it now; cliques; etc. No notability-conferring 'recognition' can be implied from the fact that she held such a position. Agricolae (talk) 15:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it should be clear from what I'm mentioning, but I'll also making it doubly clear just in case that I agree with you that this isn't wiki-notability recognition, but more of a passing mention recognition. A title like that generally amounts to WP:PUFFERY if anyone actually tries to use it. KoA (talk) 21:29, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the page for the organization: OneKind. That organization's site confirms that the Ivory sisters were founders [17]. This can be confirmed with the independent sources on this page. Lamona (talk) 04:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • REdirect to organisation. I do not believe that Scottish Anti-Vivisection Society will have had a large membership in her time, meaning that she was still NN when she died. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Peterkingiron, I'm not sure how the size of the organization affects her notability - can you explain your thinking? Also, do you think her role should or should not be added to the organization page? Thanks. Lamona (talk) 20:35, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My own opinion on this: If we go by WP:GNG, only independent coverage matters. However, there are all of those guidelines based on who 'can be presumed to be notable', to which RfD participants often add their own rules of thumb. Here we have seen argued that 'being named hon. sec. of a national-level organization makes her notable', but if that type of argument is to carry any weight at all, it must take into account the difference between being secretay of the Royal Scottish Geographical Society versus the Scottish Society for the Growing of Unusually-Shaped Vegetables. Size really does matter if one is making this kind of argument for notability. As to her incusion in the OneKind article, their page does include her in two of about 50 entries in their timeline, the first for the 1911 founding simply referring to 'the Ivory sisters', and the second reporting her death in 1949, but she is in no sense featured in their history to the level where it would be proportional to mention - plus we generally determine whether something is noteworthy based on coverage from outside the organization rather than their inherently-biased view, and there doesn't seem to be anyone outside the organization who cares (the only source we have isn't even talking about the same 'foundation', focussing on the founding of the Scottish branch rather than the subsequent founding fo the Scottish Society claimed as origin by the organization). And as if that wasn't enough to be getting on with, our OneKind article currently credits the Duchess of Hamilton with being the founder, apparently based on a BBC interview with her daughter-in-law. Agricolae (talk) 01:31, 14 February 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 2004 United States House of Representatives elections in New York. Stifle (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Samara Barend

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

This individual was a political candidate back in 2004, and received the usual coverage that all political candidates receive. She does not seem to have received any significant coverage before or since then, meaning she fails WP:BLP1E. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As to the campaign, in addition to the coverage during the campaign, the Barend/Kuhl campaign was covered years after the 2004 campaign in two places: David Mark's 2007 book Going Dirty: The Art of Negative Campaigning,[5] and Tanya Melich's article in Heidi Hartmann's 2014 2005 edited book Gendering Politics and Policy.[6] DaffodilOcean (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am changing to keep. The coverage of her 2004 campaign extends three years (David Mark's book) and ten years (The Melich article) after the campaign which is past standard campaign coverage. In addition she is recognized for her work in the period since the campaign. DaffodilOcean (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted below, I now have access to more sources, and they have allowed me to add sources to the article. The additions show there is WP:SUSTAINED coverage of Barend, her work on the Interstate 86 is one example (with coverage in 1996, 1999 ,2000, and 2007) and the 2004 election is also sustained with coverage in 2005, 2006, and 2007. (Above I also corrected the year of the Melich article, that was my error). DaffodilOcean (talk) 11:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ O'Neal, Lydia (2017-05-30). "Foreign Firms Stand To Benefit From Trump Budget, Infrastructure Plans". International Business Times. Retrieved 2022-01-23. "It's definitely a new market environment," said Barend, whose group was the driving force behind legislative efforts to expand use of public-private partnerships. The Trump-backed plan to lift the cap on PABs [private activity bonds], she said, "was a nod to" her group's proposals.
  2. ^ "Samara Barend" (PDF). Women Builders Council. 2009. Retrieved January 23, 2022.
  3. ^ "Rising stars: Samara Barend" (PDF). The Bond Buyer. 2017. p. 26.
  4. ^ "City & State New York 02122018 by City & State - Issuu". issuu.com. February 12, 2018. p. 26. Retrieved 2022-01-23.
  5. ^ Mark, David (2007). Going Dirty: The Art of Negative Campaigning. Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 172–173. ISBN 978-0-7425-4501-4.
  6. ^ Melich, Tanya (2005-10-13). "From the Trenches: Attacking First-Time Women Candidates for Congress". Journal of Women, Politics & Policy. 27 (1–2): 85–107. doi:10.1300/J501v27n01_06. ISSN 1554-477X.
  • Comment per WP:IBTIMES, There is consensus that the International Business Times is generally unreliable. Beccaynr (talk) 18:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch, I took out the quote from the page. DaffodilOcean (talk) 19:02, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Johnpacklambert - I respectfully disagree. Barend's campaign received five pages of coverage in the Hartmann 2005 book and two pages in David Mark's book. This makes the campaign itself a little unusual, which, combined with the coverage of her work on the I86 corridor, provides significant coverage of her work. Also, I have just received access to The Wikipedia Library (which is fantastic) and am in the process of adding more coverage of her work outside the 2004 campaign DaffodilOcean (talk) 17:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 01:36, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Her work on Interstate 86 and being honored by the legislature, plus her subsequent work (all sourced here) seem significant enough. The divorce papers kerfluffle made the NY Times, so it wasn't just campaigning as usual. She also has been awarded various honors -- none of a global nature, but within her field. Lamona (talk) 05:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adnan Menderes Anadolu Lisesi

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

The only reference in the article is a dead link to the schools website. I couldn't find anything in a WP:BEFORE that would work for notability either. Nor are high schools inherently notable. So I'm nominating this for deletion. Adamant1 (talk) 08:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Singh (author)

Rahul Singh (author) (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)

Promotional content. Potentially failing WP:BIO. Many of the sources do not denote the notability of subject.

Also to note that this article has gone through the entire WP:DRAFTIFY process, with the article being moved to draftspace, and reverted by the author, and that the author had reverted draftification process twice on another article they had created, indicative that subsequent draftification here may be moot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertsky (talk • contribs) 08:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are 18 sources; 7 sources are REFBOMB, trying to support the assertion that he lead a fundraiser. But from the sources, it seems that the fundraiser is a joint effort that's spread across multiple universities' alumni networks.

Notability as a guest lecturer is questionable as anyone can be invited as a guest lecturer as long the topic matches the subject matter a person is an expert/more experienced in.

There are three books listed in the bibliography, but it might as well be just two books, as Engineering to Ikigai and You know the glory, Not the story are the same book with different titles (as reveal in a source). There are a review for each book, which I don't think qualifies for notability under WP:AUTHOR: such work must have been the primary subject [sic] of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://milaap.org/fundraisers/SUMO?utm_source=shorturl No Crowdfund information page. Can be considered as primary source No Crowdfund information page. Can be considered as primary source No Nothing in the body text indicated that he led the team. ✘ No
https://www.iimnagpur.ac.in/news/guest-session-mr-rahul-singh/ Yes ~ Labelled as guest speaker. But written in promotional tone. Yes ~ Partial
https://www.iimb-vista.com/past-speakers Yes ? No just a list of previous speakers. Nothing to denote his notability. ✘ No
https://www.iimtrichy.ac.in/events/details/Nzk%3D/An_Atheist_Gets_the_Gita Yes Yes No Just an event notification. Nothing to indicate notability of the subject ✘ No
https://www.ntu.edu.sg/alumni/events/detail/2021/07/31/default-calendar/ntu-international-alumni-webinar-series-310721 Yes Yes No Just an event notification. Nothing to indicate notability of the subject ✘ No
https://gyanalogy.com/ No He runs the site. No No Homepage of the site. Nothing to indicate his notability. ✘ No
https://www.wionews.com/india-news/covid-19-alumni-of-singapore-universities-launch-crowdfunding-drive-for-oxygen-concentrators-to-india-382911 Yes Yes No Primarily on the fundraiser, as a group effort. ✘ No
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/major-international-food-company-partners-with-ihc-in-singapore-to-provide-crucial-covid-19-supplies-to-india/articleshow/82453756.cms?from=mdr Yes Yes No Primarily on the fundraiser, as a group effort. ✘ No
https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/others/indian-origin-alumni-of-singapore-univs-to-help-up-in-pandemic-times-101620224495135.html Yes Yes Primarily on the fundraiser, as a group effort. Not even mentioned by name ? Unknown
https://www.tamilmurasu.com.sg/tabla/singapore/helping-virus-hit-indians-breathe-again Yes Yes No Primarily on the fundraiser, as a group effort. ✘ No
https://nus.edu.sg/alumnet/thealumnus/issue-117/community/alumni-happenings/details/Mission-SUMO No Submission by the fundraising team. Promotional content ? Not sure what's the editorial process with regards to submissions by alumni No Primarily on the fundraiser, as a group effort. Not even mentioned by name ✘ No
https://www.ntu.edu.sg/alumni/alumni-stories-news/detail/extending-a-helping-hand-overseas Yes ? I see it as a cross between press release and a promotional content, and celebratory of an alumni involved in the project ~ Primarily on the fundraiser, as a group effort. This is written as he's sharing his perspective and involvement in the fundraising. ? Unknown
https://alumni.smu.edu.sg/news/2021/may/06/covid-19-alumni-singapore-universities-launch-crowdfunding-drive-oxygen Yes Yes No Repeat of source 7/wionews. ✘ No
https://rupapublications.co.in/books/an-atheist-gets-the-gita/ No Book listing No No ✘ No
https://www.tamilmurasu.com.sg/tabla/singapore/ancient-wisdom-simplified-modern-minds Yes Yes Yes Book review ✔ Yes
https://induspublishing.myshopmatic.com/products/engineering-to-ikigai-25-journeys-towards-purpose No Book listing No No ✘ No
https://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/12103 No Book listing No No ✘ No
https://www.tamilmurasu.com.sg/tabla/singapore/flying-high-thanks-sia-scholarships Yes Yes Yes Book review. In fact, this reveals that both Engineering to Ikigai and You know the glory, Not the story are the same books, just titled differently for the different national markets. ✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
– robertsky (talk) 08:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – robertsky (talk) 08:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. – robertsky (talk) 08:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – robertsky (talk) 08:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with above analysis. Oaktree b (talk) 18:48, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with the above source analysis, except: iimnagpur does not provide significant coverage (hence doesn't contribute to GNG); current consensus on Economic Times is between generally unreliable and no consensus, per WP:TOI; the Hindustan Times piece also does not help with sigcov since it's doesn't even namecheck the subject; the NTU alumni story cannot be considered independent nor reliable from the subject (inherent interest in promoting alumni stories in a positive light), nor does it cover the subject in significant detail. The SMU alumni source shares this similar issue. The two book reviews do not cover the subject of the article in detail. My personal tally has all sources failing to contribute to the GNG, so this clearly fails WP:NBIO. I also don't think there have been multiple independent periodical articles or reviews of his work per WP:AUTHOR, because two is the bare minimum and I like to think we have higher standards, and also given that the author credited for both pictures in the book reviews is the subject of the article (it raises concerns about the independence of the pieces, due to the article's subject being given some choice over which picture to display for his "review" articles). Pilaz (talk) 08:33, 9 February 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. ✗plicit 12:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Khande Rao Holkar

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

There is no significant coverage about him in any reliable source. There is coverage about a person whose name is similar to him - Khanderao Holkar. But I can't find significant coverage about Khande Rao Holkar. The article is not notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Delete it because it doesn't have any reliable References. Delete it if better sources are not found. ThePremiumBoy (talk) 08:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - But there are no significant coverage about him anywhere in reliable sources. There should be atleast one reliable reference in the article that gives information about him. but the article doesn't even has a single reference. ThePremiumBoy (talk) 12:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment According to WP:GNG, every article should have references with significant coverage in reliable sources, but this article does not even has a single reference. ThePremiumBoy (talk) 09:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ruler of the kingdom; clearly passes WP:NPOL. Sources are here [18] and Maratha Policy Towards Northern India stated " Khande Rao Holkar , the son of Malhar Holkar II , as the legal head of the Holkar House and he himself became the regent and virtual power in the State. VocalIndia (talk) 06:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Necrothesp and @ThePremiumBoy:, just enough?. Nomination should be withdrew. Thanks VocalIndia (talk) 06:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the nominator have confirmed as a sock and now blocked. VocalIndia (talk) 06:51, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Azad University, Arsanjan Branch

Islamic Azad University, Arsanjan Branch (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 non-notable branch of Islamic Azad University since the article has been un-referenced since it's creation in 2012 and I couldn't find anything in a WP:BEFORE that would justify keeping it either. Also, the article is extremely promotional. So I'm nominating it for deletion. Maybe someone else can find something to turn it into a half workable article though. Adamant1 (talk) 08:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions. From what I can tell the references in the Farsi article aren't usable for notability. Searching for its name in Farsi might result in something that is though. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:36, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 04:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Azad University, Arak Branch

Islamic Azad University, Arak Branch (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 non-notable branch of Islamic Azad University due to the fact that both references in the article are primary and I couldn't find anything in a WP:BEFORE that works for notability. Just a couple of extremely trivial name drops in a few articles about other things. So I'm nominating this for deletion. Considering the poor state of the article I don't think it's worth merging or redirecting to Islamic Azad University either. Although I'd be fine with either option as an ATD if someone can find sources to justify it. Adamant1 (talk) 07:58, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:36, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. I think deletion may be in order as opposed to merging with the school's main article as the information is unsourced. However merging or another ATD may be in order. GoldMiner24 Talk 12:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability MedGME (talk) 14:56, 21 February 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 Islamic Azad University. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Azad University, Ahar Branch

Islamic Azad University, Ahar Branch (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 non-notable branch of Islamic Azad University. So I'm nominating the article about it for deletion. I'd suggest a merge/redirect as an ATD but I don't think it's worth doing either one considering how poor the article is. That said, someone can pretty easily copy whatever content in the article might worth retaining. Adamant1 (talk) 07:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to parent institutin. I agree there is not enough to warrant a merge.TheLongTone (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:14, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McBain

Robert McBain (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 see any major credits that would go toward satisfying WP:NACTOR. About all I see is one of many actor interviews in the Shakespeare's Globe March 2001 research bulletin.[19] Clarityfiend (talk) 07:40, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lusíada University

Lusíada University (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)

As far as I can tell this article has only been referenced to a single source since it's creation in 2004 and the source doesn't even have anything to do with the place. Also when I did a WP:BEFORE all I could find was a few trivial name drops in articles about other things and a few school directories. Nothing that would constitute significant, in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources though. So I'm nominating the article for deletion. Adamant1 (talk) 07:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brihans Natural Products

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

There's a lot of PR sources - some explicitly labeled so, others given away by promotional text. Couldn't find anything to pass WP:NCORP. hemantha (brief) 04:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – As per WP:THREE, with these sources: [20], [21], [22], extra: [23]. I had also added a few google book sources ([24], [25]) when I had made improvements to the article last week. The company's finances are also covered in an Economic Times profile: [26]. On the existing aritcle, I don't know if mentions in these market/complaint reports count: [27], [28]. I suggest stubifying it to the reliably sourced material. If the article absolutely needs to be deleted, please draftify it instead. I am happy to take up the challenge of improving it, but I won't be able to hunt for offline sources at the local library or Times of India office for the next several weeks at least. Thanks! 2405:201:1006:E03A:54AD:9797:B968:CB1D (talk) 06:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notability requirements for companies is much more demanding than WP:GNG. None of the links you mention (many are already in the article) pass the requirements of NCORP. For eg, ToI article on an award by a little known society is promotional and does not appear independent (it all started, the uniqueness of these products, established new standards, the most modern way). Business Line and the two Financial Express articles are routine product launch coverage. ET/BI profiles are basically just pro-forma stock pages. I encourage you to read WP:NCORP once carefully. (I also note that your sources aren't quite the ones to pass WP:THREE; none are independent) hemantha (brief) 06:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for the feedback. I vote to draftify, in that case. 2405:201:1006:E03A:A573:938A:59CF:9934 (talk) 07:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:58, 7 February 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. I have been unable to find any references that meet NCORP criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 08:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Like HighKing, I am not seeing anything here that is both reliable and passes SIGCOV or such. The company exists, but it doesn't seem notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:36, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BitOasis

BitOasis (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, Lacks WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORGIND. Possible WP:PROMO/WP:COI. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. -Hatchens (talk) 05:50, 7 February 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. There is a fundamental divide here between those editors who believe GNG is met and those who believe it isn't so I'm closing this as no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 06:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sons of Korah (band)

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

Article is about a minor band and mostly contains links to wordpress blogs and tumblrs, and a couple of very minor archived mentions elsewhere. Primary editors seem to be closely involved with the band (or are just fans, nonetheless). Photonsoup (talk) 05:41, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets WP:GNG, as the band has been covered by mainstream media in non-trivial articles (the ABC article linked on the website, for example, is not a "minor archived mention" or a blog, there are other articles too if you do a Google search. The band is well known in Christian music in Australia. Perhaps the article needs a cleanup to remove some of the blogs but that's not the purpose of AFD. Deus et lex (talk) 09:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure I'd agree with you that the ABC coverage wasn't trivial. Looking through the link it's essentially a blurb about a small radio story they did. I don't want to speak to how major they are or not, since I'm not in Australia, but almost all the edits to the page are coming from a couple of accounts which also edit ancillary pages such as those about specific albums from the band, and the standard of media coverage in there could be met by any band even slightly larger than a college band, most of whom aren't exactly notable. Photonsoup (talk) 10:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Did you even read the article? I feel sometimes that editors just make dumb arguments about articles to justify deletion and it feels like you have done that here. The article is extensive and discusses and band and the album they did. ABC doesn't publish those things regularly - this does meet significant coverage. There is enough here to keep the article and you should give people the benefit of the doubt. The self-published sources don't mean the article should be deleted, it means it should be cleaned up and AfD is not cleanup. 13:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment are any of their albums actually notable? LibStar (talk) 04:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They currently have seven album articles in WP, and all are dependent on blogs and minor directory sites, much like the band's article. If the band is deleted, the albums will have to go, probably via the Speedy Delete process. If the band is kept, I suggest that all the album articles be redirected to the band ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At least one album was already speedy deleted for notability issues. Details here: [[29]]. Note that the album pages were made by the same person who made the band's page. Photonsoup (talk) 23:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. A number of sources are self published and lacking in depth. LibStar (talk) 23:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - but you haven't addressed the fact there are non-self published sources that are more extensive. Please be a bit more reasonable here. 13:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Reluctant Delete for the band. See my comment above on the albums; if the band is deleted then delete all the albums too; or if the band is kept then the albums should be redirected. We have seen this pattern occasionally with Christian musicians. This band has been around for a long time with a lot of works, and they clearly have a following within a closed network of church-sponsored associations and events in their region. But unfortunately they just haven't crossed over to mainstream coverage. Yes, they can be found online but only in their own promotional materials, minor gig announcements, or unreliable church publications and social media chatter. There's a lot of it, but it just doesn't add up to the significant and reliable coverage that is necessary for notability in Wikipedia. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 22:04, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - the ABC article is mainstream coverage. It's the Australian national broadcaster. I don't think editors are listening here, there is significant independent coverage. Artists do not have to be "mainstream", that's not Wikipedia policy. Deus et lex (talk) 13:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • See WP:SIGCOV. Not only does someone have to be mentioned in a reliable source, but whatever that source talks about has to be significant, and there has to be more than just one such source. Also, "mainstream" in my comment applies to media coverage, not the band. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as well as the ABC radio source there is also significant coverage here in this Cross Rhythmns article which is an established Wikipedia reliable source for christian music so deletion is unnecessary in my view as WP:GNG is passed in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Clearly passes WP:GNG with the significant coverage in Cross Rhythms and the ABC. StAnselm (talk)
  • Comment: Sources such as Cross Rhythmns and ABC keep being mentioned, but none of those sources seem to have any major coverage, as much as they were mentioned. A mere mention in an outside source isn't sufficient for notability, it really feels like a reach to call that serious coverage and I'd encourage anyone reading this discussion to follow through on the sources linked. Photonsoup (talk) 02:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're talking about, but I'm talking about the 1/2 hour episode of ABC Radio dedicated to the group. That's certainly significant coverage. StAnselm (talk) 02:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I, as an individual, would hit that standard for media. I don't think a single 30 minute story in the band's 28 year history meets WP:SIGCOV. I will reiterate that I don't necessarily know enough to know if this band is notable within Australia or the relevant music community, but I can say what's here doesn't seem sufficient for WP:SIGCOV and the fact that the primary defence against deletion is pointing at the same two articles tells me there isn't sufficient coverage. Again, I could be wrong, but if I'm wrong I'd really love to see an effort to present more significant coverage rather than just pointing at the same couple of articles and insisting it's sufficient. As is it feels like a few people really want this article to meet a notability standard that simply isn't there. Photonsoup (talk) 03:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Cross Rythymns source and ABC are significant coverage Atlantic306 (talk) 01:22, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Additional rs coverage here, here, and here imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:42, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Cross Rhythms and ABC are both RS and both SIGCOV, GNG is met, and after reviewing the coverage, I agree with St. Anselm, above. Jclemens (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep GNG met, see: Cross Rhythms (2x, now), ABC and Sight Magazine articles.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:56, 18 February 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 List of Kakegurui – Compulsive Gambler characters#Kirari Momobami. Liz Read! Talk! 05:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kirari Momobami

Kirari Momobami (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 subject of the page might not be notable. All other Kakegurui characters are listed on the page List of Kakegurui – Compulsive Gambler characters, including the main character (Yumeko Jabami); the only thing that makes this subject stand out is due to cosplay, which I don't believe is enough of a reason to create a page. Vortex (talk) 04:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 05:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anil's Ghost

Anil's Ghost (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 page consists entirely of original research and has been tagged as such since 2007. The novel by itself is not notable and doesn't merit its own article. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 04:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to keep this (and it looks like we are), can we at least agree it needs to be substantially trimmed down? At this point most of the article consists of unsourced original research and more than a little editorializing. What if we stub it down to the plot and characters? I honestly don't see any way to source most of sections 1, 4, 5, 7, and 8 as they read more like a piece of lit crit than an encyclopedic entry. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 20:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go for it; I don't think anyone would object to that. DanCherek (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We appear to have reached a quick consensus to keep. In accordance w/ this discussion, I will be paring this article down to the essentials of plot, character, and that which has otherwise been properly sourced. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 20:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oop, sorry in advance for your edit conflict. I was already at work on it when you posted this. I've left in some of the less-shaky OR and moved the maintenance tags down to it specifically. If you want to hack more out of it, that's fine. -- asilvering (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This may possibly be the worst nomination I've ever seen of a Canadian article. Ignoring that surely any Ondaatje (one of the most famous current fiction writers in the nation) novel is going to easily meet GNG (he's only written 7 in the last half-century) and WP:NBOOK, the book is controversial, famous, and won a Giller Prize. I can't even being to comprehend how this came to be nominated. As to the content - this is definitely not the forum - WP:BeBold and improve the article. Generally, I'd WP:AGF, but this is the users sixth-ever Wikipedia edit - the previous edit, was a very sophisticated request to WP:Edit filter/False positives/Reports! Something seems odd here. Nfitz (talk) 21:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nfitz Bots have "false positive? report here!" links all the time. There's nothing sophisticated about following that link, looking at how others have responded, and writing up a report. -- asilvering (talk) 22:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • He's a bot? Nfitz (talk) 22:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me rephrase: when you are caught by an edit filter, they have a "false positive? report here!" link. Anyone who was acting in good faith and had reasonable competence would be able to then follow that link and explain themselves. Hardly sophisticated. In this case, the edit filter didn't just tag the user's edit history, but actually blocked the edit entirely - very hard not to notice. -- asilvering (talk) 23:13, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay - I was having trouble figuring out what that entire thing was - I couldn't find any instructions, or clear definition of it! I guess it must be new - it never triggered when I was a newb. I'll strike the word "sophisticated" ... though I note from the first edit that the summaries were quite sophisticated. Nfitz (talk) 00:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Um, hello? I just tried to close the discussion and somebody reverted my edit. I thought we all agreed this is an obvious keep.Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 23:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Just Another Cringy Username We did. I think that user may have assumed your edit was incorrect or vandalism. Sorry: this is probably going to happen to you a lot at the beginning. You should probably go talk to that editor on their talk page to resolve this. -- asilvering (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Discospinster: You reverted someone who was withdrawing their own AfD nomination (without any other delete !votes), was that a misclick? DanCherek (talk) 23:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, really starting to feel unwelcome here. Sorry for breaking into the private clubhouse. You guys have fun w/ this article. I'm out. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 23:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't give up! Given how quickly - one might say uniquely, you've jumped in, and fully comprehend so many nuances of the project, then clearly you've a bright future ahead of you! Nfitz (talk) 00:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Cleanup issues are a matter for the editing process, not the deletion process — but a widely-reviewed novel by one of Canada's most internationally famous writers, which won one of Canada's major notability-clinching literary awards, cannot possibly be deemed non-notable by any definition. If there's a problem with the content, then fix the content, and if there's a problem with the referencing, then fix the referencing — but there's a legitimately strong notability claim, and solid referencing most certainly does exist to improve the article with. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The novel received several awards including Giller Prize and also significant coverage. The article clearly meets WP:NBOOK. 05:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Bigstory1 (talk)
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. ✗plicit 12:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sab Satrangi

Sab Satrangi (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 just-started TV (presumed-to-be-)series in same form that was declined at draft by User:FormalDude: "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of films). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia." DMacks (talk) 04:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. DMacks (talk) 04:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify, it's way WP:TOOSOON. There's useful information in the current article, if the subject turns out to attract enough attention to be notable. Otherwise, if the subject doesn't get written-about in the next six months, the draft can be deleted thereafter. Elemimele (talk) 06:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify for now - Adding critical commentary would be extremely helpful, article creator needs to show more patience and work on existing drafts, not creating article after it was moved to draft space previously. Ravensfire (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify with no comment on notability. I know making no comment on notability at an AfD is like being a food critic who reviews exclusively architecture, but the creator of the article needs to listen to FormalDude's suggestions and actually implement them - best to stop beating the horse before it becomes a carcass. casualdejekyll 23:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify, There's no need to delete the article THIS soon. I agree that I made a mistake by submitting the draft for review too soon but still deleting the article may not be a wise decision. If the topic doesn't turn out to be attractive, it can always be deleted later but for now, the article should be kept. I will correct my mistakes and add reliable sources to the article.Tech2009Girl (talk), 8 February 2022 — Preceding undated comment added 02:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I've indef CIR-blocked the article creator, who is also the only substantive contributor, for widespread problems (only one of which is re-creation of this arcticle against advice). DMacks (talk) 15:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vimosure

Vimosure (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)

Overall looks and sounds like WP:promo. I don't really see why it would meet WP:GNG guidelines either. Signed,The4lines |||| (Talk) (Contributions) 04:23, 7 February 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. Anyone is free to move the article to the title suggested below. However, editors are encouraged to improve the article with the sources indicated below to prevent renomination in the near future. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 02:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coyote J

Coyote J (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)

Deprodded with vague "it needs to be improved, not deleted" comments. However, I was utterly unable to find even the tiniest bit of sourcing. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Memories of Nashville Rock Radio
KET Louisville Life: Coyote Calhoun Story KET is a PBS station
Coyote Calhoun Inducted into DJ Hall of Fame
Coyote Calhoun to retire after 35 years at WAMZ
Coyote Calhoun Page listing numerous other articles about him
Kris Applegate, Legendary Locals of Louisville, p. 63, ISBN 1439645876, 2014, Arcadia Publishing Inc.
https://www.radioworld.com/news-and-business/coyote-calhoun-ends-35year-career Coyote Calhoun Ends 35-Year Career]
There's more, but he's clearly notable. GregJackP Boomer! 01:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP The notability has been established. The article needs a lot of improvement, but that is a function of more of a "notable enough to spend enough time to fix and source the article" problem that editors juggle. The on-air 1988 incident, for example, ended with police intervention and earned him the notoriety afterwards. I *think* the Birmingham market is big enough to establish him as a major DJ, but if it's not, the 1988 on-air firing is. The article would be fine with a smaller set of details and less narrative to fit the sources and relative notoriety. Fix, shorten, and keep. I like to saw logs! (talk) 06:36, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:GNG with sources presented by GregJack. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 07:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • GregJack sources are for a different person, Louisville Country DJ,Coyote Calhoun (no real name sighted) Worked at WAMZ in 1988 and could not have been fired from Z-102 in Birmhingham. Coyote J, real name Jim Batton, is not the same man. 19:23, 13 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armysheep75 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to establish consensus on whether the sources are for the person being discussed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would agree with the Armysheep75 case. Louisville Coyote Calhoun was born in San Marcos, Texas [30], but his real name is simply not given. He worked in Wichita, Knoxville, and Sallisaw, Oklahoma. [31] There seems to be enough sourcing for an article on the Louisville Calhoun. A search of Radio & Records turns up mentions of a Coyote J. Calhoun that appears to be the subject of the AfD, but the lack of a searchable local paper really hinders me nailing down anything other than the fact that Coyote Calhoun and "Coyote J. Calhoun" or Coyote J are separate people. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:20, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep provided that the information in the article about them being a producer is accurate. Being both a radio DJ and a music producer give them the notability required. Without that the notability is harder to determine. Having said that, the page certainly has room for improvement. Gusfriend (talk) 06:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep thanks to the sources found by GregJackP. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:52, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Move to Coyote Calhoun. Many more quality sources appear using this name of which this reference is probably the most significant source. It documents his induction into the on-air personality category of the Country Radio Hall of Fame in 2005. This would mean he passes criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO.4meter4 (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aanchal Kumar

AfDs for this article:
Aanchal Kumar (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 out and out nondescript article. Fails WP:GNG, and WP:NACTOR. Lacks WP:SIGCOV, and WP:RS. Possible WP:PROMO/WP:COI issues. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. -Hatchens (talk) 03:37, 7 February 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. Every keep !vote other than the first is given very low weight for being "per X", but the suggestion that NACTOR has not been met was successfully refuted by MoviesandTelevisionFan. Stifle (talk) 14:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Wheeler

AfDs for this article:
Sally Wheeler (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)

Same reasoning as 3 months ago - she had a 22 episode role in the 1998 series Two of a Kind but not much after- has 11 credits total per IMDb with not many if any being significant roles and not many resources aside from a Bustle article I found. Most of the other articles are just mentions of her. Doesn’t meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:26, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Meets WP:GNG, with also meeting WP:NACTOR with her role in Two of a Kind and perhaps her stage performances too. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 15:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Oaktree b (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. The article needs a lot of clean-up for grammar, redundancies ("She did x. After x, she did y"), WP:OVERLINKing of place names, etc., and to properly link the names of the stage shows that she was in. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ssilvers:, @Oaktree b: - you consider 11 credits from the span of 1998-2014 significant enough for her own wiki page? Most of the roles are as minor characters that don’t get more than 1 episode. LADY LOTUS • TALK 21:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The 22 episodes of Two of a Kind and the other body of work along with other reliable sources seem to satisfy. She was also in a Lyrica commerical (per the Bustle article) in which the manufacturer spent several millions dollars to promote, she's probably more remembered from that these days. Oaktree b (talk) 01:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment - the 4 Lakeside Ledger references used on her page and used to seem as "significant coverage" are from a newspaper in her hometown that does a single paragraph mention each article. I don't count that as significant as "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention". WP:NACTOR has "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows" - she had a 22 episode run on the only season of Two of a Kind but nothing passed that so the "multiple films and tv shows" doesn't apply. I will add that whatever the outcome of this is, I'll be fine with, I just want all facts to be known before a decision is made. :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for the reasons of those who want to keep this article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:15, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to discuss the significance of the sourcing
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as per the reasons above, seems to be superfluous nomination with no merit. article is well sourced and relevant.
TVHead (talk) 15:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @TVHead: - instead of just repeating others arguments, are you able to tell me how she does meet GNG and NACTOR? As I've said above but noone responded to, the 4 Lakeside Ledger references used on her page and used to seem as "significant coverage" are from a newspaper in her hometown that does a single paragraph mention each article. I don't count that as significant as "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention". WP:NACTOR "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows" - she had a 22 episode run on the only season of Two of a Kind but nothing passed that so the "multiple films and tv shows" doesn't apply. Would you care to explain your reason for the Keep vote? LADY LOTUS • TALK 16:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lady Lotus my reasoning is above, and seems to be the consensus (again). Thanks for the reply. TVHead (talk) 17:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So you didn’t explain your reasoning (again) or respond to my question. Thanks. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:46, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you disagree with the consensus (for the second time). However arguing with me over my own view isn't helpful. TVHead (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It’s just frustrating because noone will explain their vote. All youre saying is whatever the others arguments are instead of explaining how she meets GNG and NACTOR when I’ve pointed out that she doesn’t. Like if I’m wrong, I’m wrong and her page will stay and that’s fine but noone is responding to me and the points I’ve made. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:13, 13 February 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:57, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amirkhan Shavayev

Amirkhan Shavayev (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 footballer who played for some lower-tier football clubs (hence, even if that would not be a reason to keep this, this footballer even fails the very loose suggestions of WP:NFOOTY regarding notability) and now [or at least, as of the last time the article was updated] holds the dubious (in terms of encyclopedic notability) distinction of playing for an amateur side... A search for proper reliable sources to meet WP:GNG does not yield any result whatsoever (besides this interview which looks to be about some lad in Crimea with the same name...), which would be quite astonishing for a "notable" 21st century footballer, even if they're from a non-English country.

Of course, the source in the article is (if you're not surprised!) nothing but a very mundane and all-inclusive database...

Hence, a very, very thorough fail of WP:GNG. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lara Piper

Lara Piper (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 was not able to find sufficient in-depth coverage to indicate that the subject meets WP:NACTOR or WP:NARTIST. The sources in the article are social media, user-generated, or, in the case of the Chronicle article, do not mention her. There is virtually no coverage of her as an artist, not even trivial mentions, so that can be safely discarded as a potential source of notability. Her acting career was short-lived, and also did not produce much media interest. The best I could find were these two newspaper clips: [32] and [33], both from early 1990. The first isn't bad - a little "star spotlight" feature in a Texas paper, but the second link is just a short human-interest fluff piece about her emceeing a local student function. There was nothing after that. I don't think it's sufficient coverage to keep a BLP about someone whose public career is largely over and who is unlikely to generate new coverage. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:50, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bret Kugelmass

Bret Kugelmass (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)

BLP masquarding as a business article. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. scope_creepTalk 01:55, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:23, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete seems like a long, drawn-out linked in career history. Oaktree b (talk) 20:35, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not appear to pass GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 21:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Camille Stewart

Camille Stewart (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)

Refs are mix of profiles and interviews. Fails WP:SIGCOV. WP:BLPPRIMARY. scope_creepTalk 00:24, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DaffodilOcean: Good work on updating the article, although the quotes in the references are deeply uncool and will need formatted properly at some point, if the article survives. It may survive yet. The Bloomberg reference is semi-decent but is covers five companies and would count only as a basic reference. The awards are non-notable. They are corporate awards and are junk. The Politico references I'll check them; they may be better. scope_creepTalk 17:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did not intend to cause problems with the quotes. Is the problem the existence of the quotes, or the formatting of the quotes? I thought it would be helpful to have the information in case people cannot access the sources. DaffodilOcean (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is a simple fix. No worries. Forget about it. I'll fix it, if the article survives. scope_creepTalk 19:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Change from comment --> keep; I added in a few more citations, but minor pieces compared to my earlier additions. DaffodilOcean (talk) 04:10, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The sources confirm that she has held high-level positions in her field. There are enough sources that focus on her to meet NBIO. Lamona (talk) 05:01, 10 February 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. per sources provided during the discussion. I suggest further integration into the article, but that's not a matter for AfD. Star Mississippi 02:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Global Hotel Alliance

AfDs for this article:
Global Hotel Alliance (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)

WP:PROMO article that doesn't show notability per what's required in WP:NCORP. The article is merely a document of the company's holdings and its loyalty program. A search for WP:RS comes up empty (just some chatter in hospitality industry trade press, nothing of broader social interest) because it's a private holding company. FalconK (talk) 00:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Selection of three sources:
      1. Zámborský, Peter; Kruesi, Michael A. (2018-01-02). "Global Hotel Alliance: Strategy Discovery Moving East". SAGE Business Cases. SAGE Publishing. doi:10.4135/9781526440044. Retrieved 2022-01-30.

        This case study has a length of 4,128 words. Here is the outline of the case study:

        1. Case
        2. Learning Outcomes
        3. Introduction
        4. GHA Background
        5. DISCOVERY Rewards Program
        6. Competitor Analysis
        7. Strategic Challenges Faced by the GHA
        8. Conclusion
        9. Discussion Questions
        10. Further Reading
        11. References
        The case study notes in the "Conclusion" section: "With the move of its headquarters from Geneva to Dubai, the GHA positioned itself well for the growing emerging markets in the Middle East, Africa, and the Asia-Pacific region. However, the alliance faced stiff competition from other hotel alliances with a global footprint, global hotel multinationals, and some strong local players in the luxury segment of the market where they competed. To overcome these strategic challenges, the GHA invested heavily in technology and marketing, trying to distinguish itself from competitors and provide value to its members and customers. The key decisions that the GHA management had to make related to its geographic positioning and marketing positioning in what has increasingly been a global marketplace for luxury hotels."
      2. Ind, Nicholas; Iglesias, Oriol (2016). Brand Desire: How to Create Consumer Involvement and Inspiration. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. pp. 86–87. ISBN 978-1-4729-2535-0. Retrieved 2022-01-30 – via Google Books.

        The book has a two-page section titled "Global Hotel Alliance and transformational leadership". The book notes: "GHA was established in 2004 as a way of sharing customers and services across different independent hotel brands. Today, there are thirty-two brands and over 500 luxury hotels and resorts. The initial thought about building the GHA brand was to mimic the way airline alliances were structured – encouraging customers to collect points as they stayed at hotels and to cross-sell different experiences. In the early days the challenge though was getting the individual hotel group CEOs to agree on a way forward – everyone had their own subjective view of what would work."

      3. Verbeke, Alain; Roberts, Robin E.; Delaney, Deborah; Zámborský, Peter; Enderwick, Peter; Nagar, Swati (2019). Contemporary International Business in the Asia-Pacific Region. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 231. ISBN 978-1-108-62068-0. Retrieved 2022-01-30 – via Google Books.

        The book has a "Spotlight" titled "The Global Hotel Alliance seeking growth in the East". The book notes: "Boutique hotel chains from the Asia-Pacific region, including Rydges and Antara, joined forces with other luxury hotels and formed the Global Hotel Alliance (GHA). The GHA represents over 34 brands with over 500 hotels and resorts operating in more than 76 countries. The alliance moved its headquarters from Geneva, Switzerland, to Dubai, United Arab Emirates in 2014. Thus, it positioned itself for growth in the East rather than focusing on Europe and America, where its competitors hailed from; ... Thirty-three per cent of GHA's hotels are located in the Asia-Pacific region, closely behind Europe (34 per cent) and ahead of the Middle East and Africa (20 per cent)."

    2. Additional sources:
      1. Chathoth, Prakash K. (2008). "Strategic alliances in the hospitality industry". In Olsen, Michael; Zhao, Jinlin (eds.). Handbook of Hospitality Strategic Management. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. p. 227. ISBN 978-0-08-045079-7. Retrieved 2022-01-30 – via Google Books.

        The book notes: "Yet another example of a marketing alliance that uses technology to create synergy is the Global Hotel Alliance. ... This alliance has brought together seven prominent hotel brands that include Dusit Hotels & Resorts; Kempinski Hotels; Landis Hotels & Resorts; Marco Polo Hotels; Omni Hotels; Pan Pacific Hotels and Resorts; and The Leela Palaces and Resorts. This also provides the allying firms with a more global access to markets while at the same time providing customers with a one-stop internet site that provides customers and travel agents with attractive prices and access to all member hotels' products, while providing them access to airline products as well."

      2. Gong, Yeming (2013). Global Operations Strategy: Fundamentals and Practice. Berlin: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. p. 196. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-36708-3. ISBN 978-3-642-36707-6. ISSN 2192-4333. Retrieved 2022-01-30 – via Google Books.

        The book notes: "The hospitality industry has also built a number of alliances. For example, the "global hotel alliance" (GHA) is a collection of 14 luxury regional hotel brands with 300 hotels, palaces and resorts in 52 countries around the world. An important RM tool of GHA is "GHA Discovery", a loyalty program rewarding travelers with "local experiences" to offer members access to a large selection of adventures not easily available to the general public, since GHA believes that rewarding members with memorable experiences is more valuable than collecting points. GHA Discovery also provides general hotel benefits such as complimentary Internet, early check-in, late check-out, upgrades, and guaranteed availability."

      3. Evans, Nigel (2015) [2003]. Strategic Management for Tourism, Hospitality and Events (2 ed.). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. p. 418. ISBN 978-0-415-83727-9. Retrieved 2022-01-30 – via Google Books.

        The book notes: "Global Hotel Alliance (GHA) brings together mainly mid-to-upscale brands from around the world. Unlike Best Western it represents smaller chains of hotels which maintain their individual branding. The consortium represents brands such as ParkRoyal, Pan Pacific and Marco Polo which have properties across Asia Pacific; and Kempinski Hotels, a luxury brand with properties across Europe, Asia and Africa and Leela, which is represented at key locations across India."

      4. Sharkey, Jon (2004-03-16). "Business Travel: On the Road; At Upscale Hotels, Women Have Power". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2022-01-30. Retrieved 2022-01-30.

        The article notes: "Skeptical industry executives say it is not at all certain that a partnership like Global Hotel Alliance, comprising highly individualized independent regional companies, each run by strong-willed executives, can cooperate and compete persuasively against the luxury giants for the valued international traveler. ... All four of the participating chains, which have a total of 235 upscale hotels mostly in the boutique and midsize categories, already market personalized services, of course."

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

    Cunard (talk) 09:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe in that case we should replace the article completely with material from the case studies. I'm surprised I didn't uncover those. FalconK (talk) 21:14, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The keep argument may be mistakenly worded, but it seems to indicate that an analysis of the sources was not performed. Therefore a more thorough look should be made.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The sources shared by Cunard establish notability. NemesisAT (talk) 14:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with the new sources.Gusfriend (talk) 09:35, 9 February 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maritime Matters

Maritime Matters (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)

Maritime Matters is a user-generated blog that fails WP:WEBCRIT. The one reference found that specifically mentions it also describes it as a blog [here]. While it appears that the writer makes an effort to ensure accuracy, there is no editorial oversight. The web site owner voluntarily discontinued it about two years ago and the pages can only be found through the wayback machine. The domain appears abandoned. The website doesn't inherit any nobability that the individual contributors might have by their own merit. Blue Riband► 01:30, 7 February 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. Nomination withdrawn as AfD was created in error. (non-admin closure) – NJD-DE (talk) 00:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Wire

AfDs for this article:
The Daily Wire (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 meant to open an AfD for Candace (show) not The Daily Wire. I accidentally clicked on a wikilink to The Daily Wire beforehand or had multiple tabs open. I'm not sure what happened, but I'm asking for assistance in remedying this huge mistake at the help desk. Sorry for any disruption in editing. TipsyElephant (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I previously opened a WP:PROD and I am still concerned about the notability of this topic. I am not suggesting that Candace Owens or The Daily Wire are not notable, but that this show is not notable as an independent subject and does not WP:INHERIT notability from its host, network, or guests. The current sourcing is very poor in regards to coverage related to the show specifically. Most of the sources are only WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of the show and instead are heavily focused on Candance Owens, The Daily Wire, or Donald Trump. For example, the Forbes article only contains one sentence that mentions the show. Most of the sources don't mention the show at all. For instance, the New York Daily News, Newsweek, CNN, and The Washington Examiner sources all discuss related topics such as Candace Owens, The Daily Wire, and Trump but never even mention a show or podcast let alone provide in depth coverage of the show. Sources like the first and second references from The Hill as well as the Black Enterprise are largely WP:INTERVIEW content, which means that they are primary or not independent of the subject.

The reliability of the current sources is also quite concerning. I would expect to see a few sources that have made it to WP:RSP as "generally reliable" or a few sources that are not on RSP but appear reliable. However, the reliability of The Washington Examiner, WP:NEWSWEEK, and WP:FORBESCON are all in question at RSP and as such likely do not contribute to notability even if they did mention the show. The reliability of OutKick and Black Enterprise have not been evaluated at RSP/RSN as far as I can tell. For OutKick, I can't find anything about an editorial board, mission statement, or even a list of staff and the parent company is simply OutKick Media. The site is at the very least a clearly partisan source and the author of this particular article is included on the site's list of "contributors", which is often mentioned at WP:RSP as potentially unreliable (WP:CONTRIBUTOR is relevant). The Black Enterprise source at least has an about page and a management staff page, however, I don't see "Cedric 'Big Ced' Thornton" listed as a member of the staff. The New York Daily News is at least listed at RSP as "generally reliable", but even that entry notes that editors "question the accuracy of its tabloid-style headlines" and the title in question is "Cardi B and Candace Owens threaten to sue each other in epic Twitter battle".

I also believe that WP:NOTNEWS is extremely pertinent. When looking for sources I find quite a few news stories about Trump and his stance on the covid-19 vaccine rather than discussion about what the show is, common topics of the show, how long an average episode is, how many episodes are there, what platforms is it available on, what are similar or related shows, or a review of the show as a whole. While reading the current sources it's unclear whether this is a podcast, radio show, television show, or only a youtube channel. Based on my searches for additional sources it appears that Trump's views on vaccines is more notable than this show. The whole interaction between Candace and Cardi B sounds like WP:NOTGOSSIP. I also think WP:ROUTINE is relevant considering the few sources that do discuss the show are mostly just announcing that the start of the show and Candace's move to The Daily Wire.

There was a merge discussion that ended in no consensus with very little evidence suggesting that the show is independently notable. I believe this topic is more suited for a section at both the articles for Candace Owens and The Daily Wire rather than an independent page. There has also been some discussion on the talk page regarding whether the content could be merged to Candace Owens or The Daily Wire. If any of the content is preserved I would suggest merging it to Candace Owens because the focus of the article is supposed to be on a show that she hosts and, given the name of the show, couldn't exist without her as the host. Whereas, The Daily Wire is the production company and most of the time news coverage of shows like this barely mention the production company, but The Daily Wire probably should have an entry for the show as well. TipsyElephant (talk) 00:22, 7 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_February_7&oldid=1070451327"