Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 April 13

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nomadicghumakkad (talk | contribs) at 11:31, 13 April 2022 (Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prasun Chatterjee.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< April 12 April 14 >

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:48, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prasun Chatterjee

Prasun Chatterjee (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. They have given some quotes and did some charity work during covid like many others. Nothing significant about it. Created by a blocked user. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 11:31, 13 April 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. – Joe (talk) 11:45, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Koenig Institute

Koenig Institute (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 and WP:CORPDEPTH miserably. Most of the RS hinges on Edward Snowden coming to India to do something here. That's not in-depth of the subject but of them. Also read the language. Campus is 18,000 sqft. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 11:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Contested soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Providing few significant sources of substantial coverage which satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH;
A news article discussing a prolonged controversy
1-Edward Snowden sharpened his hacking skills in Delhi
2-What Was Edward Snowden Doing in India?
A scholarly article, a book passage, or ongoing media coverage focusing on a product or organization
3-Hero or Traitor Edward Snowden and the NSA Spying Program Main case study page, Author: Laura Winig, Case Number: 2018.0
Publication Date: April 30, 2014, Faculty Lead: Christopher Robichaud, Harvard Kennedy School, Hosted:University of Central Florida
A documentary film exploring the impact of the corporation's facilities or products,
4-Significantly covered in Al Jazeera video news Al Jazeera report. RPSkokie (talk) 01:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please describe 'how' the given sources meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Simply listing sources and claiming that they meet CORPDEPTH doesn't have a lot of value. Will be helpful if you can specifically highlight which part of the sources meet CORPDEPTH. TOI is not even counted as a full WP:RS so that's out. Foreignpolicy.com source doesn't have in depth discussion or analysis of Koenig institute. Just a bunch of quotes from spokespersons. Please recall that for CORPDEPTH we need independent analysis, discussion and commentary. Al Jazeera is a generic report that they seem to have filed after this case. No traces of independent discussion of Koenig. In your Harvard source, Koening is mentioned only twice. That's passing mention at best, far away from significant coverage, let alone CORPDEPTH. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 22:03, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just noted that the description of example of substantial coverage is broken or missing important parts. Right descriptions are A news article discussing a prolonged controversy regarding a corporate merger. And similarly, A documentary film exploring environmental impact of the corporation's facilities or products Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:16, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It would take a lot of substantial, in depth coverage to make a run-of-a-mill IT training facility notable and this institute doesn't have it. Liz Read! Talk! 01:11, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 08:37, 28 April 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 00:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Freshwire

Freshwire (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)

Obvious fail of WP:NCORP. 12 pageviews in 30 days and a broken website suggests that this company never really went anywhere. Edwardx (talk) 10:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This appears to be only a brand name that appeared for maybe two years and then ran out of money. Never got close to being notable enough for an article in Wikipedia. W Nowicki (talk) 22:15, 20 April 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. weak? Mild? Can we find another synonym? Star Mississippi 01:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kira Willey

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

No independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR and WP:NMUSICIAN. Edwardx (talk) 10:21, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The only possibly notable award is two Independent Music Awards in 2009 for "Childrens Music: Album" and "Childrens Music: Song". From our article on this award, "...self-distributed recordings and releases from independent record labels. The IMAs honor works in over 100 categories...". So, there are plenty of awards every year, and judging by the refs and pageviews for our article, the IMAs are marginally notable at best. Edwardx (talk) 19:49, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mild Keep Looks like she's been featured in the New York Times, but the paywall won't let me in. If it's the same person, she did music for a national travel campaign for Newfoundland, Canada [1]. Her "Breathe like a Bear" has one Kirkus review [2] and one in the Digital Journal [3]. One of her songs is mentioned in a peer-reviewed journal, [4] about yoga for children. Her books are also recommended curriculum material here, in a thesis: [5]. I think with all this and the awards she's just notable enough. Oaktree b (talk) 16:12, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with this analysis and weak keep. CT55555 (talk) 18:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Another agreement of the analysis. Weak Keep. It feels wrong to write this little substance in a !vote casualdejekyll 17:02, 27 April 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 11:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

William Levitan

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

Not seeing independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Likely fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC. The American Academy in Rome hands out 30 Rome Prizes annually and it is simply "a study fellowship at the academy", so not a notable award. Edwardx (talk) 10:13, 13 April 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 11:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shawna Hamic

Shawna Hamic (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 references are IMDb and her website. Also, much of the content is verbatim from her website and IMDb (which she wrote), so likely copyright infringement. David notMD (talk) 09:59, 13 April 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. The keep !votes based on WP:ARTIST part 4 and WP:ANYBIO have been adequately refuted. Stifle (talk) 13:31, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jeannie Pwerle

Jeannie Pwerle (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:NARTIST. Edwardx (talk) 09:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep On the basis of criterion 4 of WP:ARTIST. Explanation follows
  1. Criterion calls for artists work being "a substantial part of a significant exhibition"
  2. So was the "Know my Name" exhibition by the National Gallery of Australia significant? I think yes. My sources to back that up 1 2 3 I could go on, there is a ton of coverage if you search "Know My Name" in google news.
  3. And so was her work a substantial part of the exhibition? This is the weakest link in my logic chain, there are between over 250 artists in the exhibition So I think this could be argued either way, but also it was a country's national galleries most expensive exhibition ever (see above). Pwerle is mentioned and got her own page https://knowmyname.nga.gov.au/artists/jeanie-pwerle/
  4. So in summary, the national gallery of a country is specifically telling us there are the 250 artists we should know about, it's quite directly telling us there are the notable artists, and she's one of them. I think she passes WP:ARTIST CT55555 (talk) 10:17, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If there are over 250 artists in the show, then one painting by Pwerle cannot be deemed "a substantial part". And every artist gets their own page at the exhibtion website, so that means nothing. Edwardx (talk) 10:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    When the national gallery of a country puts on an exhibition that is explicitly telling us that women have been underrepresented and this is an attempt to showcase the ones we should know, they are really doing exactly what I think the people who wrote WP:ARTIST intended. All 250 are notable, as I see it. I don't see any sources for your statement that this is "one painting" so if you have more sources about her work, please share them.
    I think we need to consider scale here. If a local gallery said "here's the 250" best artists from our town, I'd accept the counter argument more easily. When the national gallery of a nation with 25 million people says "there are the 250" I think we need to accept that all 250 are probably notable.
    I also don't think that just because they created pages for the artists in the series it should diminish my point. What the gallery did or did not do for others, I think, are arguments to avoid in AfD. CT55555 (talk) 11:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took a look at how we represent the artists in Know my Name. We have articles on approximately 75 % of the participants. It would be interesting to look at it a bit more closely and see if there is bias in our coverage. Vexations (talk) 19:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My preference would be to keep the article, but the it has some serious issues. I didn't see any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Galleries who sell Pwerle's work have written about it, but that does not establish notability because it is not independent coverage. The collections listed appear to fail verification. A commercial art gallery that has some works by an artist in stock is not a collection. The NGA would be significant, but fails verification. I cannot confirm that they bought any work by Pwerle. Notability here hinges on whether qualified professionals (not us) find the work somehow important ot significant. I am very sympathetic to CT55555's argument that recognition by the NGA ought to suffice. I'd like to see better sources. Are there no reviews? That would really help.
Motivated by your comment, I looked into her exhibiting in the places she mentioned. I got here http://holmesacourtgallery.com.au/article/angelina-pwerle Now is "Angelina Pwerle" and "Jeannie Pwerle" both of Utopia the same person? I see she goes by at least four names and Jeanie does sound like a contraction of Angelina, so I'm saying yes. i.e. I think the claim is verifiable. But also is it a commercial gallery? I think it is, but seems like it also houses a collection, but seems maybe her art was not in it permanently. This is obviously frustrating the way we live in a world where Aboriginal women in Australia have been documented to be excluded from media, and we're applying the exact same standard to her as everyone else. This is a bigger conversation than this AfD, but I think Wikipedia also does encourage common sense and there is literally an agreed philosophy that we can "ignore all rules" if they have negative consequences. What is a worse consequence that upholding systemic bias, systems of oppression. Should we ignore that because it's a bigger, longer term problem? I hope not. I plea to anyone reading this to vote, as Wikipedia encourages, using common sense, the spirit of the rules and the spirit of "we are here to build an encyclopedia" CT55555 (talk) 12:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC) My comment was framed with a mistaken starting assumption, as corrected below, now striking out. CT55555 (talk) 14:00, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CT55555, Angelina Pwerle is a different artist. She was born in 1946 in Utopia. We have an article on her. Netherzone (talk) 13:48, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Here is confirmation that the National Gallery of Australia bought one of Pwerle's works (an untitled woodcut) in 1990. I'll try and confirm this at the library tomorrow, but I believe she has a biographical entry in the book Aboriginal Artists Dictionary of Biographies by Margo Birnberg and Janusz Kreczmanski. --Canley (talk) 13:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:ARTIST states: "The person's work (or works) has: ... (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." Several means three or more, and this being a print does not help. Edwardx (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Switching vote to Delete based on comments by Edwardx and Netherzone. One collection is not enough to satisfty WP:NARTIST 4(d), even if it is the national gallery. Furthermore, there is no current basis for passing WP:GNG as the references are nearly all gallery sources. Curiocurio (talk)
@Curiocurio I wonder if you noted that, Netherzone, just voted to keep? CT55555 (talk) 15:51, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment NARTIST 4(d) states that these need to be "notable galleries or museums". Mbantua Gallery is a commerical gallery that sells her work. As for the Holmes à Court Collection (which in itself is at best marginally notable), all we have is a claim on a CV page from japingkaaboriginalart.com, another commercial gallery that sells her work. Sorry, but this is a clear 4d fail. Edwardx (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep NARTIST 4(d) Theredproject (talk) 18:33, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment See my comment for the Keep vote above. Edwardx (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Aboriginal Artists Dictionary of Biographies meets ANYBIO Theredproject (talk) 19:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment regarding the "collections" - Two of the "collections" are definitely not notable permanent museum collections, the article is in error (I'll correct that after this post). The Mbantua Gallery is not a museum it is a commercial sales gallery, and the item supposedly in their collection has been sold by the gallery. See: [6]. The Holmes a Court Gallery is also a commercial sales gallery, not a museum, the citation in the article goes to a "Add to Cart, How to Buy" page.[7]. So it appears that these galleries show her work, but that fact does not contribute to notability. The National Gallery of Australia collection can be verified, but one collection is not enough to put her over the bar of WP:NARTIST. Courtesy pings to Curiocurio, CT55555, Theredproject about the collections. I'm holding off on !voting to see if Canley was able to find her in the Aboriginal Artists Dictionary of Biographies, if so she would pass WP:ANYBIO Netherzone (talk) 19:03, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment She does have an entry in Aboriginal Artists Dictionary of Biographies, but the bio is pretty short (about 32 words). The entry does mention that Pwerle was one of 46 featured artists in the Meeting Place five-year travelling exhibition (confirmed on the back of the poster) which seems pretty significant (it was a major exhibition featured during the International Council of Museums (ICOM) conference in Melbourne). --Canley (talk) 03:39, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. I remain keep for the reasons I made in my first comment (i.e. the national gallery saying she is one of their top 250). CT55555 (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - based on the short entry in Aboriginal Artists Dictionary of Biographies, she meets WP:ANYBIO criterion #3. That combined with the fact she is in the National Gallery collection, I think the article should be retained. Netherzone (talk) 13:48, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Funny how people clutch at straws to try keep worthy pursuits like art and academia went there is no hint of passing GNG and rabidly attack less highbrow activities like sport even when there is a clear verified passing of a SNG. No that dictionary is not the "country's standard national biographical dictionary", no pass of ANYBIO #2. 32 words is not a GNG pass. ARTIST 4d is not passed by being sold in shops. duffbeerforme (talk) 22:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon (talk) 13:16, 21 April 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 11:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Technofarm International

Technofarm International (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)

Has been completely unsourced for over a decade. A WP:BEFORE search does not return any sources; fails WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 09:06, 13 April 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 Seán Lemass. Stifle (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lemass era

Lemass era (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 text here could be moved to either economy of the Republic of Ireland and or Seán Lemass, so this could be considered a merge discussion rather than a deletion discussion. My reasoning in proposing not having it as a standalone article is that it seems to be relying on a single source for its description, in essence adapting a title used for a monograph into a general term for the period. I would know what someone meant by Lemass era, but it doesn't reach the level of a general term, such as Celtic Tiger. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 08:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nom: Far too short for a stand alone article and better suited to either of the suggested articles. ww2censor (talk) 10:12, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or just redirect to Seán Lemass#4th Taoiseach (1959–1966). It is a valid search term, but better as a redirect to the period when he was Taoiseach. The section in the bio article is much longer than this one, though it is described as a main article to it. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - this article needs expanding not merging or deletion. Such sn importart era in modern Irish history. Shame narrow minded editors can't see that. Spleodrach (talk) 23:11, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. Ideally to the relevant section of the Seán Lemass article. Or, failing that, to History of the Republic of Ireland#Economic, political and social_history, 1945–1998. I suggest this because there is no indication that the term "Lemass era" is used broadly to describe this 7 year-period in Irish history. To the extent that such a period can or should be covered under its own title. A Google search, for example, returns just 2000 results for the term. The vast majority of these results being either mirrors of the Wikipedia article, or references to Brian Girvin's book of that title. I can find nothing to indicate that the term/topic has broad enough use to warrant its own article. And, if it did, I don't understand how such an article could cover the period - without such content/article being a WP:CFORK of other related articles. (If the topic of such a standalone article is the term, how would that not be a DICDEF stub? If the topic of a standalone article is the influence of Lemass's policies, then how would it not be a CFORK of the Lemass article content? And, if the topic of the standalone article is a "snapshot" of a 7-year period in Irish history, how would that not be a CFORK of related Irish history/economic-history articles? The title probably has some value as a redirect. But I see only problems leaving it as a CFORK article. (And, frankly, the SIGCOV guidelines do not justify having a standalone article regardless...) Feels like WP:NEO at least partially applies here (or would have back when article was created....) Guliolopez (talk) 13:55, 15 April 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. Stifle (talk) 14:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blenheim Palace in film and media

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

PROD removed by creator with rationale of "Absurd nomination, this a UNESCO world heritage site, dependent on filming and publicity for its survival. As was discussed on the talk page, listing filming on the site, would swamp the main page. Where are these ridiculous nominations coming from?" Creator states on their talk page "That was a page I created 12 years ago as a dump for all the dull information on the Blenheim Palace page when I re-wrote it" - accurately reflecting the unencyclopedic content of this article. Article violates WP:NLIST and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Any encyclopedic content should be in the main article. AusLondonder (talk) 08:16, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture and United Kingdom. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: stupid nomination: This is a time-wasting nomination. Of course, an important UNESCO World Heritage site needs a page to cover its innumerable appearances in film and literature. Otherwise, the main page would be swamped with trivia and adverts and no one would bother to read it. So far, the palace's appearance in some 33 films is listed, I could double that in a second if I felt so inclined, but I don't! Giano (talk) 17:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So you admit that this content is 'trivia and adverts'? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:51, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I don't find sufficient cause for deletion. This palace is famous. The filmography and references meet WP:BASIC --Whiteguru (talk) 22:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Not the greatest page in the world, but I don't like these spin-offs from the main article being picked off at afd. I don't see the policies quoted apply. Johnbod (talk) 04:05, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They shouldn't be spun off. Any relevant encyclopedic content should be kept at the main article. AusLondonder (talk) 08:54, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's very much a minority view, with little support in policy. See WP:SUMMARY in particular. Johnbod (talk) 15:57, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The example given at WP:SUMMARY is World War II. The biggest event of the 20th century. Not a landmark. Recent consensus has in fact been that landmarks do not need these kind of seperate, poor quality articles, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eiffel Tower in popular culture (3rd nomination) or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tower of London in popular culture. AusLondonder (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eiffel Tower in popular culture (3rd nomination)... What is the point you are making that this is the THIRD time the article has been nominated, other than there are people who are pushing their preferences regardless of previous consensus? LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:38, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – By virtue of the length of the article on the house itself (6k+ words; per Wikipedia:Prosesize, I think), splitting off mentions of appearances in popular media seems justifiable, although I can imagine more succinct mentions being viable if the decision were to Merge. The articles on other equally photographed/video'd houses, in my experience, are far smaller (e.g. Syon House at 1.8k+ and Castle Howard at 1.5k+), where media mentions are listed with greater succinctness and equal lack of referencing to those here. Dhtwiki (talk) 04:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I'm suggesting. Any useful, encyclopedic content should be at the main article. A lot of this article is a load of crap. AusLondonder (talk) 08:57, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely blown away by this argument. "We should keep poor quality, unencyclopedic nonsense on the project because of obsessive IPs". AusLondonder (talk) 13:44, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That’s not actually what I, or others, have said. KJP1 (talk) 06:28, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You literally started your comment by stating that you did not disagree with me but that certain editors "obsessively" add inappropriate and irrelevant content so we should give them space to do so. I disagree with that part. I'm saying inappropriate and irrelevant content should be removed. We're an encyclopedia not a webhost for random trivia. I'm happy to watch the main article and encourage others to do so and remove inappropriate and irrelevant content. AusLondonder (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
AusLondonder - I’m not arguing over your misunderstanding/misconstruing what I, and others, have said. You’ve made your proposal, now let other editors add their views. Presently, your proposal is clearly not enjoying anything like majority support. KJP1 (talk) 13:34, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - to the article about the palace. It's a fun list, but mainly too trivial for Wikipedia. But why delete it when someone might be able to salvage something from it? This topic has potential - let's make it painless for future editors to compose something about this.-
GizzyCatBella🍁 14:24, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mainly per Johnuniq. There are multiple sources discussing this topic. Also the main article is long and could readily be lengthened further; a split of this nature makes sense. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:06, 18 April 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 per WP:SNOW, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tek Fog

AfDs for this article:
Tek Fog (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 are companies that generate television segments and sell them to broadcasters – this is broadcast syndication. This also happens in printed media and across websites. A syndication company may offer the same story in multiple formats, such as a long and short news article, or the same story with an alternate lead, or a video and a written article. Whatever the length or format, they usually contain the same claims and are written or edited by the same person or team. Syndicated news pieces may be independent of the subject matter, but they are not independent of one another. When considering notability or due weight within an article, all of the related articles by the same publishing syndicate, no matter how widely they were sold, are treated as the same single source.WP:SYNDICATED the whole article is cited from multiple sources and all the sources are syndicated from The Wire's investigative journalism article written by Wire's editors Ayushman Kaul and Devesh Kumar. there are no seperate, independent research by any other source on tek fogDdd421 (talk) 07:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would also note that the nom, Ddd421 only joined Wikipedia on 6 April and since then has attempted to purge two articles (both with spurious rationale) about controversies relating to Modi's party (their first attempt being less than 10 minutes after their first edit). AusLondonder (talk) 13:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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) 06:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Cooper School

Captain Cooper 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)

No evidence of any notability, no reliable, independent sources, only sources related to the school or district. Fram (talk) 07:27, 13 April 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 11:54, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Intrinsic value (numismatics)

Intrinsic value (numismatics) (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 should be deleted because of its coatrack content that does with the effects of intrinsic value rather than the concept of intrinsic value itself, which is already addressed at pages such as Penny (United States coin) and Gresham's law. Whatever is left of the definition can either go to Wiktionary, or merged into the dab page Intrinsic value. NotReallySoroka (talk) 07:02, 13 April 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! 05:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Papadopoulos

Larry Papadopoulos (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:NMMA. Could not find sources to verify he was an Australian jiu jitsu champion. LibStar (talk) 06:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The third source merely mentions Larry in 1 line and mentions he is a gym owner. Not indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 03:19, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Agree fails WP:NMMA on basis of ranking. No RS for WP:GNG beyond NMMA. --Spinifex&Sand (talk) 03:10, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He has enough fights with Shooto to meet WP:NMMA. However, that only gives a presumption of notability. I don't see the coverage necessary to show that WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 23:29, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No internet access for weeks, didn't realize sports SNGs had changed. Doesn't change my vote, however. Papaursa (talk) 00:30, 19 April 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 Encyclopedia#Free encyclopedias. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 13:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Open encyclopedia

Open encyclopedia (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 concept does not seem to pass WP:GNG. Yes, there's a blog post, and maybe some scholar papers that mention "open encyclopedia" when referring to Wikipedia, but I failed so far when looking for further coverage of open encyclopedia as a concept itself. MarioGom (talk) 14:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 14:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic is notable, not saying anything about the reference. @@@XyX talk 17:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Being notable means passing the general notability guideline. Are there reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject? Which ones? MarioGom (talk) 21:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Topic is mentioned in this research article, in several books (Google Books ngram), news and publications (example in several blogs). -- Avoinlähde (talk) 22:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Google Books ngrams are misleading. They detect the occurrence of both words together, even with punctuation in the middle. Many results are citations to the same article: Algowiki: an Open encyclopedia of parallel algorithmic features. We need actual, identifiable sources. It's not enough if they use the words "open encyclopedia". They should cover the concept of "open encyclopedia" significantly. MarioGom (talk) 09:07, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added mentions of other open encyclopedias alongside Wikipedia. Sure, the sources need to be improved, but Wikipedia just happens to be so popular and dominant that the term goes hand in hand with it. However, that does not detract from the importance of the topic. The article does not mention unreferenced information. --Avoinlähde (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Encyclopedia#Free encyclopedias. I agree with MarioGom that it isn't enough to find sources that happen to use this phrase: notability requires coverage that "addresses the topic directly and in detail", and a source that does nothing more than using the phrase is clearly not addressing the concept in detail. And in any event, even if the topic is notable, that doesn't necessarily mean that a standalone article is warranted, per WP:PAGEDECIDE. The basic concept here – encyclopedias that consist of free/open content – is already covered at Encyclopedia#Free encyclopedias, and there's no reason in this instance why content forking is needed: the main Encyclopedia article is not long enough to require splitting, and there are no content relevance issues. Since there's no content here that needs merging, the best solution is to redirect back to the main article as an alternative to deletion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/redirect Wikipedia might be an open encyclopedia, but it is not a dictionary (and this "article" is really a dictionary entry). Keep arguments are unconvincing, (an unsupported assertion of notability is not in the least a valid argument). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:34, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:15, 13 April 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 and redirect to Gotabaya Rajapaksa. As noted by the relisters, none of the "keep" opinions are of any substance: they assert that the person is notable, but do not attempt to address the "delete" side's argument that there is no substantial mcoverage in reliable sources. Sandstein 20:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ioma Rajapaksa

Ioma Rajapaksa (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:ANYBIO, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources - noting that notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. The individual is not automatically notable simply because she is married to a significant politician. Should be redirected to Gotabaya Rajapaksa. Dan arndt (talk) 07:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @DaffodilOcean:, it also states: can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG. Dan arndt (talk) 13:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What about the article about common outcomes of WP:Afd discussions [12] which says "The spouse of the head of state or government is usually regarded as notable? I realize that 'usually' is subjective, but the quote from Dan arndt is from the previous paragraph at WP:NOTINHERITED which is talking more generally about famous relatives, not a national first lady. DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep - based on the guidelines from Wikipedia that I cited above, she's spouse of a head of state and therefore usually notable. DaffodilOcean (talk) 11:37, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Based on comments above, seeing lots about her in Google news. I'm opening minded to changing my mind if you think I've misinterpreted the comments above, so tag me if you think you can convince me otherwise and I'll revisit this decision. CT55555 (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per news hits and WP:POLOUTCOMES. It's the nominator's burden to explain why this article should be an exception. pburka (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - as per WP:ANYBIO the key issue is there is no significant coverage about the individual in the sources supplied, just a mention is passing. She is not notable in her own right I disagree that just becuase she is married to a notable individual does not make her notable. Dan arndt (talk) 02:16, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There appears to be enough coverage of the subject to merit an article. As an example, article mentions that the subject holds dual citizenship. --Enos733 (talk) 18:06, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ioma Rajapaksa is the first lady of sri lanka. Sri lanka uses the title first lady frequently to describe Ioma. I would understand not creating a wikipedia page for the former president of sri lanka's wife as the president said that he did not want his wife to hold the title first lady.
    Ioma Rajapaksa is mentioned as mahinda rajapaksa wife in this talk. She is the spouse of gotabaya rajapaksa, the current president of sri lanka. Gotabaya uss the title first lady for his wife foundly. This means that the international community should also label her as first lady of sri lanka, thus meaning a wikipedia page for ioma and future first ladies of sri lanka should have a wikipedia page, unless, they are not labelled as one Theeveralst (talk) 19:45, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment as previously stated it clearly fails WP:ANYBIO all that has been provided as references are merely mentions in passing there has not been any evidence of 'significant coverage' about the individual. Dan arndt (talk) 03:59, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: On the face of it, most of the keep arguments are not very persuasive. Notability is not inherited or inherent. It requires verifiable evidence, evidence which is pretty much lacking here. Google hits do not equate with meeting GNG. This needs more discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:37, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: per above from my northern neighbor
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Passes WP:BIO and referenced articles show WP:SIGCOV. GoldMiner24 Talk 02:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you identify where the sources are that demonstrate significant coverage - all the references are mentions in passing merely demonstrating she is the wife of the president, nothing more. Dan arndt (talk) 03:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP as per DaffodilOcean. Though the article might not be great, it passes GNG as the spouse of any country's president, the first lady, is notable as per WP:COMMONSENSE. --- Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 04:11, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Common outcomes" is a non-binding essay that sums up past outcomes, and the "common sense" special pleading is no substitute for actual sources, especially in a BLP. The actual rules (WP:INVALIDBIO) are clear that a notable person's spouse isn't automatically notable. Looking at the article, source 1 doesn't mention the subject; source 2 has no prose and is just an image caption; and 3, 4 and 5 are not secondary or independent. The Subday Observer piece posted above is a passing mention. Whoever said above that the sourcing meets BIO and GNG (both of which require sigcov in 2+ sources) hasn't seriously looked at it. On top of this one can add WP:BLP1E, or rather BLP0E since no notable events are associated with the topic. Avilich (talk) 15:15, 28 April 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 Mitsuru Adachi. Liz Read! Talk! 02:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bōken Shōnen

Bōken Shōnen (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 Mitsuru Adachi is a notable author, I don't think this volume is notable too, and is still unreferenced for a very long time since its creation. - Xexerss (talk) 03:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Anime and manga and Japan - Xexerss (talk) 03:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Mitsuru Adachi largely per nom. It appears like the series was licensed in Italy and Korea, though I don't know many good places to look for Manga reviews in either of those languages. The websites I do know in Italian that seem to be okay are it:AnimeClick.it and it:Everyeye.it, but the only meaningful thing I found was this list of popular Seinen manga, which is definitely not significant coverage. It is definitely possible that more sources exist, but I don't know any other good places to look. Link20XX (talk) 03:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:25, 20 April 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 the content. There is reasonable conversation as to whether it should be kept as a standalone or merged, but that does not require continued AfD where no one is arguing for the deletion of the material. Star Mississippi 01:30, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Grocer's Encyclopedia

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

Only reference is just a link to the book, and I can't find anything in a WP:BEFORE check (including checking Newspapers.com) to satisfy WP:NBOOK. AviationFreak💬 02:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. AviationFreak💬 02:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. AviationFreak💬 02:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. AviationFreak💬 02:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Here are some potential references:
    • "Ward's Encyclopedia of Foods". The Hotel Monthly. 31: 78. 1923.
    • Smith, Andrew (2013). The Oxford Encyclopedia of Food and Drink in America. Vol. 1. p. 48.
    • "New Encyclopedia of Food". The Tea and Coffee Trade Journal. 45 (1): 90. July 1923.
    • "New Books: The Encyclopedia of Foods and Beverages". The Progressive Teacher and Southwestern School Journal. 23 (4): 6. April 1917.
Apart from the recent Oxford volume, I'm not sure how independent these reviews are, but there are many more in contemporary journals. pburka (talk) 15:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm leaning towards a keep here, as the sourcing I'm able to pull up gives off the strong impression that there was more coverage back in its day, that coverage just isn't online. It's used relatively frequently as a source in more modern day works, which kind of reinforces this. This is one where I doubt we'll be able to pull up much online without access to databases and some serious digging. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's also mentions like this, which further reinforce that it seems to have been relatively influential in its day. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • On Newspapers.com (account needed) there's mention of various outlets that gave it good reviews. I'm not sure if those are just blurbs or reviews, but given the other sourcing I'm leaning towards them likely being reviews. Again, this is a situation where searching is hampered by it just not being online. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:09, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah - The first of these appears to be a fairly trivial mention of the book to me, and the second sort of borders on advertising IMO. I agree that there may have been more substantial coverage back in the day, but at the same time we ought to verify that such sources really exist. AviationFreak💬 03:19, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge >>> Artemas Ward (writer) (whose article would be made more comprehensive with inclusion). Djflem (talk) 05:00, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. "The Grocer's Cyclopedia. By Artemas Ward. Published by the Author. $10" (PDF). The Nation. Vol. 98, no. 2541. 1914-03-12. pp. 272–273. ISSN 0027-8378. EBSCOhost 14254653.

      I uploaded a copy of the article to File:The Nation (1914-03-12), volume 98, number 2541, pages 272–273.pdf. The article is in the public domain because it was published in 1914.

      A copy of the 1914 The Nation article

      The article notes:

      Believing that the grocers and general shopkeepers of the United States greatly needed a book giving information regarding their business, Artemas Ward issued, in 1882, “The Grocer’s Handbook”. It was so crude a performance that he now feels ashamed of it. During the three decades that have since passed, he has diligently gathered material for a better book, the result being “The Grocer’s Encyclopedia;” a large volume of 748 pages, which treats of more than 1,200 subjects. The author’s activity, for twenty years, as editor of the National Grocer, gave him unusual opportunities, which he supplemented writing letters of inquiry to all parts of the globe. The result is a work of great value and interest—a book indispensable to intelligent distributers of foods and at the same time of importance to housewives, who would less frequently have inferior articles foisted on them if they knew just what to ask for and how to judge quality. In these pages they can find out when different fishes are in season; what are the best coffees, teas, potatoes, apples, wines, and so on. There are twelve pages on cheese, with descriptions of forty-eight varieties; twenty on coffee, with a color-page showing twelve varieties. Altogether, there are 449 illustrations, eighty of which are full-page plates in color; some of these are purely ornamental, but most of them are useful, as e.g., the four which show the most important cuts of beef. Under Canned Goods many will be surprised to read that, while in the matter of quantity we hold the record, in variety Europe surpasses us, Holland having canneries which put up several hundred kinds of edibles. Incidentally, there is a great deal of miscellaneous information, such as how to cook bacon, how to eat mangoes, how to test butter. There are also general articles of use to all business men, such as Trade-Marks, Partnerships, Good Will, Window-Dressing. The subject of adulteration is not treated as fully as it might be; nor does the author dwell as he should on the advantages of refrigeration over freezing.

    2. "'Grocer's Encyclopedia'—rare glimpse of the pre-hoagy days". The Philadelphia Inquirer. 1977-09-08. Archived from the original on 2022-04-18. Retrieved 2022-04-18 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Back in 1911, when William Howard Taft was President and a wooden stapladder sold for 27 cents, a 748-page book entitled "The Grocer's Encyclopedia" was first published. ... Today, 66 years later, the encyclopedia is not only a book collector's delight — bringing upwards of $50 each at public sales — but its contents opens an interesting window to a slice of bygone Americana. Beginning with a brief dissertation on the Abalone, the book literally spans the entire diet of the early 20th century; discussing staples that are still popular today, despite the current "junk food" craze, as well as edibles that have long since passed out of most diets."

    3. "A Grocer's Encyclopedia as a Christmas present". Simmons' Spice Mill. Spice Mill Publishing Company. December 1913. p. 1279. Retrieved 2022-04-18 – via Google Books.

      The article is in the public domain because it was published in 1913. The article notes:

      A GROCER'S ENCYCLOPEDIA AS A CHRISTMAS PRESENT

      A Christmas present that is suitable under all conditions for everyone in the grocery business is a copy of Artemas Ward's "Grocer's Encyclopedia." Mrs. Grocer could not surprise her husband with anything that he would enjoy more—nor anything that would be of more practical aid to him in his business. Mr. Grocer could not present his chief salesman with anything more likely to stimulate his interest in the business and increase his selling efficiency. Or, the salesmen can club together and give it to the boss. An addition advantage is the fact that Mrs. Grocer and Mrs. Salesman will find as much interest and practical information in it as will their husbands.

      The grocer or grocery salesman who possesses a copy of "The Grocer's Encyclopedia" need never feel embarrassed by any questions pumped at him by a housekeeper of enquiring mind for that fine work will answer them all. Caviar types, truffles of different countries, mushrooms of all varieties, fancy liquors, any of a thousand wines, food names in five languages, etc.—anything and everything one may want to know is there.

      This is really a wonderful work. The text treats on fully 1,200 subjects, covering all kinds of foods—their habitat, cultivation, preparation for market, quality and grades—and containing many inside trade "pointers," which are of practical value in buying. The work is illustrated with 80 full page beautiful color plates of tropical fruits, nuts, cheeses, meats, game birds, etc., and hundreds of photographs showing food growing and preparation in all parts of the world.

      Its handsome appearance makes it additionally suitable for a holiday gift. It contains 748 pages 11 x 8½ inches in size, printed on heavy calendered paper, and strongly bound in buckram. It is said that it cost more than $50,000 to produce this book, but it sells for $10 per copy, delivery prepaid. Orders may be sent to The Spice Mill Publishing Co., 97 Water St., New York.

    4. "Appropriate Christmas Gift". The Retail Grocers' Advocate. Vol. 19, no. 48. 1914-11-27. p. 19. Retrieved 2022-04-18 – via Google Books.

      The article is in the public domain because it was published in 1914. The article notes:

      Appropriate Christmas Gift

      A Christmas gift that is sure of an appreciative welcome by anyone in the grocery business is a copy Artemas Ward's "GROCER'S ENCYCLOPEDIA." It possesses double meri— as a reference work of high value and a volume full of entertainment to eye and mind.

      The advance of the business during the last few years renders it essential that the modern grocer and his employees keep themselves thoroughly informed and up-to-date, and nothing is more likely to stimulate the interest of the salesman than the fascinating light which this book throws on many phases of the grocer's calling and on innumerable items of his stock.

      Supposing that Santa Claus is working in the opposite direction—one may suggest that Mr. Gorcer could not surprise her husband with any thing that he would enjoy more—nor anything that would be of more practical aid to him in his business. Or, the salesmen club together and give it to the boss.

      Whether it is either, or both, Mr. Grocer and Mr. Salesman receiving the book as a Christmas remembrance, an additional and very delightful advantage is the fact that Mrs. Grocer and Mrs. Salesman will find as much interest and practical information in it as will their husbands. Such a combination is altogether too rich and too unusual to be passed by, when the cost is only a ten dollar bill.

      The grocer or grocery salesman who possesses a copy of The Grocer's Encyclopedia need never feel embarrassed by any questions pumped at him by a housekeeper of enquiring mind, for that magnificent work will answer them all. The text treats on fully 1200 subjects, covering kinds of foods—their habitat, cultivation, preparation for market, quality and grades—and containing inside trade "pointers," which are of practical value in buying and caring for goods, which you can obtain nowhere else.

      It is illustrated with 80 full-page color plates of fruits, nuts, cheeses, meats, game birds, etc., which the N. Y. Press describes as "the most beautiful that ever appeared in a work of encyclopedic character," and hundreds of photographs showing food growing and preparation in all parts of the world.

      The book contains 748 pages 11x8½ inches in size, printed on heavy calendered paper, and strongly bound in buckram.

      Its handsome appearance and wealth of illustrations make it a well-nigh ideal holiday gift.

      It is said that it cost more than %50,000 to produce, but it sells for $10, delivery paid. Send your order to the Retail Grocers' Advocate Bldg., San Francisco, California.

    5. Ward, Gilbert Oakley (1926) [1911]. The Practical Use of Books and Libraries: An Elementary Manual (4 ed.). The F. W. Faxon Company – via Google Books.

      The book is in the public domain because it was published in 1926. The book notes: "Ward. Encyclopedia of Food. Descriptive information on food products found in grocery stores. Written for grocers and general storekeepers, but useful to students of domestic science and commercial geography. Previous editions are published under the titles of Grocer's Encyclopedia, and Encyclopedia of Foods and Beverages."

    6. "Ward's Encyclopedia of Foods". The Hotel Monthly. August 1923. p. 78. Retrieved 2022-04-18.

      The article is in the public domain because it was published in 1923. The article notes:

      The Encyclopedia of Food, by Artemas Ward, is republished in a revised and enlarged form, the new book containing six hundred pages and thousands of illustrations. This is the most comprehensive and exhaustive presentation in book form of human foods that has ever been produced. The different foods are listed alphabetically, so that in reference to any particular kind of food all to do is to find the name in the alphabetical order The type is large and clear and the name of the food is given in a sidehead in black type for quick finding.

      There seems not to be a single item of food produced for market in any part of the world but what is given an exposition in this book, with interesting information as to where and how grown and the stages passed thru before reaching the family table. There are more than eighty full-page color plates picturing about two hundred different food subjects in their natural colors; and there are a thousand or more subjects illustrated in half tone pictures, many of them taken especially for this book. One who may be familiar with foods in a general way is apt to be astonished when turning the leaves of this encyclopedia to find how many things edible were unknown to him; and one is impressed with the gathering from all over the world to supply the ordinary family table of today. We learn of fish and flesh and fowl of vegetables and fruits, of fungi, of honey and tea and coffee, of cheese in many varieties, and, in fact everything for human sustenance and the pleasing of the palate.

      There is an appendix in the form of a dictionary of translations of food names in six languages—English, French, German, Italian, Spanish and Swedish. There are also translations from the German, Italian, Spanish and Swedish words into English, each arranged under their particular language. There is also an alphabetical list of culinary and bill of fare terms.

      In the preface to his book Mr. Ward gives credit to Charles Martyn for the revision of the text and bringing the book in this respect to its present authoritative stage. Hotel people will remember Mr. Martyn from his former connection with hotel newspapers—in particular the many years he was editor of the New York Caterer. Another man to whom the author gives praise for valuable services in the production of this volume is Herman Eggeling, who is responsible for fifty or more of the colored plates and their exposition of the natural appearance of the different foods.

      The book sells for $10.00.

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Grocer's Encyclopedia to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 08:33, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:19, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. No objection against merging into the author's page. pburka (talk) 03:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I oppose a merge as there is enough material in The Grocer's Encyclopedia to justify a standalone article. A merge of the entire article to Artemas Ward (writer) would be undue weight. The book meets Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria based on the substantial coverage in reliable sources I have provided including a review in The Nation. Cunard (talk) 07:02, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Cunard: I've looked over those sources and I'm not convinced that most of them aren't just advertisements. Two of them specifically mention the book as a good Christmas gift, the Inquirer mention doesn't list an author and it appears to be the only "story" on a page full of advertisements, and page 78 of the Hotel Monthly source you linked appears to just be an ad for ovens alongside listings of business transactions. Google Books shows no results for "Grocer's Encyclopedia" in that source, but I'm likely just missing it. I don't think these sources stand up to the bar of significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. AviationFreak💬 20:19, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • There was certainly a different style of reviewing books in that era, and it's hard to tell what might be paid content. But the review in The Nation is critical ("The subject of adulteration is not treated as fully as it might be; nor does the author dwell as he should on the advantages of refrigeration over freezing."), and the more modern Oxford Encyclopedia of Food and Drink in America is certainly independent. I'm confused by your claim that The Inquirer coverage isn't independent: what's their hidden motivation to write about a book that had been out of print for at least half a century? pburka (talk) 21:30, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's true about The Inquirer - Hadn't checked the date there. AviationFreak💬 01:40, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The first four sources shared by Cunard appear to show significant coverage. I oppose a merge as the subject meets WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 19:42, 23 April 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! 05:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indigenouism

Indigenouism (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 on an "art movement" does not meet WP notability for WP:GNG. After reading the sourcing it is fairly clear it is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. It was created by one of the blocked sock puppets[13] of Amangpintor[14] which coincidentally happens to be the pen name of the artist Elito Circa who is the originator of the "movement". It was heavily edited by Amangpintor's other socks. A BEFORE search did not turn up anything to substantiate that this is in fact a notable art movement, and the article sourcing seems to be a patchwork of synthesis, primary sources and name checks. Bringing it here for the community to decide. Netherzone (talk) 02:09, 13 April 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! 02:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TRN TV

TRN TV (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 believe this to be a hoax page. Nothing called TRN TV seems to exist in Germany, and if it ever did, it certainly never met the GNG.

This page is coming to AfD because there have been a bunch of malformed speedy and PROD attempts on it over the years:

  • 2009: An IP blanks the page on similar "does not exist" concerns, and another user PRODs it. The text is restored by another editor and deprodded.
  • 2011: A user tags it for G1 speedy deletion. The edits are reverted as vandalism.
  • 2017: The page is PRODded a second time, which is removed due to the prior failed PROD. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:54, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:54, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:54, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per no evidence of topic existence. — Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 02:16, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I could not find any evidence of topic; few mentions of "TRN TV" was unrelated to the TRN TV described in the article. - Roostery123 (talk) 06:41, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Never an actual thing, and I see several other accounts tried to call it out, but were ignored. Let's finally put the fork in it. Nate • (chatter) 14:59, 13 April 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! 02:06, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Buddleja 'Asian Moon'

Buddleja 'Asian Moon' (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)

Consensus has been established via discussion at WP:PLANTS and previous AfDs/PRODs that individual cultivars are not presumed notable in the same way as natural species, and must meet GNG to have a standalone article. Database and commercial catalog entries are not considered sufficient for this purpose. I found no WP:SIGCOV of this cultivar on a search and my source analysis shows that what's in the article is insufficient for keeping it:

  1. Primary source from breeders
  2. The only reliable and independent source in the article
  3. Commercial product listings are usually not accepted as indications of notability
  4. Not independent - "Garden Debut" program that the cultivar was released under is owned by Greenleaf (see [15])
  5. Both sources in ref 5 are lists of cultivars approved for use by the state, not significant coverage
  6. Garden Debut is not independent, see #4, and the Sooner Plant Farm is another commercial listing, see #3 ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:41, 20 April 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! 01:41, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

W. McAdam

W. McAdam (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)

With WP:NFOOTY now deprecated/removed/whatever you want to call it, I have been unable to find any indication that this player meets WP:GNG. The only sources I can find on any search appear to be Wikipedia mirrors. I don't contest the reliability of the book cited in the article (which I wasn't able to find and review), but it appears to be book of statistics and records rather than prose commentary. Even if it were significant coverage of McAdam, a single source is insufficient on its own.

There is no list of Darwen FC players or article for the 1891-1892 season to redirect to. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. How did we ever have articles like this in the first place? Never likely to be anything other than the tiniest stub; no new sources giving more information ever likely to be found. RobinCarmody (talk) 14:45, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. Delete. There is always the possibility that a book will be found which provides information about Darwen as a Football League club. It isn't surprising that the internet doesn't help in a case like this. NGS Shakin' All Over 14:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG and we don't even appear to know their first name. The article has existed for almost 9 years without improvement, so I fail to see any point in moving it to draftspace- if people haven't improved it in 9 years, it's unlikely they'll do so in the next 6 months. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I've changed my vote from draftify to delete. NGS Shakin' All Over 15:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Rlink2 (talk) 17:54, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on (the old) NFOOTBALL with a handful of appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Player fails GNG, and we don't even know his first name! ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 14:43, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Subject lacks WP:SIGCOV. GauchoDude (talk) 14:54, 14 April 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 Nom withdrawn. Article is back in draftspace which was the goal Star Mississippi 02:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Literacy Crisis

Literacy Crisis (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)

School project that is not ready for mainspace. @Ian (Wiki Ed) and Praxidicae: moved it to draftspace where @Liance: twice declined it. Creator is not willing to respect consensus that this isn't ready, so we're here. OR, essay like tone without a clear topic. There could be an article about literary crises, but this isn't it. Star Mississippi 01:35, 13 April 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! 01:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Botswana–South Korea relations

Botswana–South Korea relations (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. There is not much to these relations besides diplomatic recognition. LibStar (talk) 01:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Africa, and South Korea. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per non-notable relations between two nations. There are diplomatic relations but no embassies, trade agreements, or mutual defense treaties. According to the Korean Foreign Ministry, there was a total trade volume of US$36,833,000,[4] which is pretty insignificant for both countries. TartarTorte 15:50, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/backgroundbriefing/3956118
  2. ^ https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/league-heads-up-on-wrestling-controversy/IZBR6JLVVRT54Z7JXYGTOYOZIQ/
  3. ^ https://concreteplayground.com/sydney/food-drink/food-2/the-city-of-sydney-al-fresco-dining-summer-streets
  4. ^ "Korea-Botswana Trade Summary". Retrieved 17 April 2022.
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. ✗plicit 00:05, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suryamal Mishran Shikhar Award

Suryamal Mishran Shikhar Award (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 Suryamal Misran is notable, there's no evidence this prize is. Article creator is not inclined to fix the problems in draft space, so we are here. References are not in depth and simply seem to verify a recipient and the award's existence. A merger to Mishran would also be fine Star Mississippi 01:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The award is notable. It is one of the top awards in Rajasthan literature conferred by Rajasthani Bhasha Sahitya and Sanskriti Akademi which is the official government body for Rajasthani language by state of Rajasthan. Other than Sahitya Akademi awards for Rajasthani which is Union government body, this is the only other government recognized body.
Since its a Rajasthani language award, its hard to find sources in this language other than news articles when it is conferred on someone.
The official website is "सूर्यमल्ल मीसण शिखर पुरस्कार though its not properly maintained. Finally, it would be better to add it as a section to Suryamal Misran article for now, better sources might be avaialble in future. Krayon95 (talk) 08:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - An article should speak for itself and explain why the subject is notable, and this one does not. The read cannot be expected to check all of the references. The article has been reference-bombed, which makes it difficult for a reviewer to check all of the references, but the reviewer should not be expected to check all of the references. (The originator may identify between three and five sources to check, but should also clarify in the article why the award is notable.) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:47, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't start this article originally but translated it from Hindi Wikipedia. Since then, more than 25 sources have been added also referencing the awards for the recipient list. This award was started in 1985 and has been covered in books and news sources:
  1. Dutt, K. C. (1999). Who's who of Indian Writers: 1999 : In 2 Vol. Vol. 1 A-M. Sahitya Akademi. p. 1168. ISBN 978-81-260-0873-5.
  2. Rājasthāna vārshikī (in Hindi). Pañcagaṅgā Prakāśana. 1988. p. 13.
  3. Aṇuvrata (in Hindi). Bālacandra Jaina. 2006. p. 38.
  4. Hindī sāhityakāra sandarbha kośa (in Hindi). Hindī Sāhitya Niketana. 1997. p. 136. ISBN 978-81-85139-29-6.
  5. Kanhaiyālāla Seṭhiyā By Kanhaiyālāla Seṭhiyā, Rādhādevī Bhāloṭiyā, Kanhaiyālāla Ojhā · 1989
These are standard books and also prove the early coverage of the award since its beginning. Again, the award is notable and is one of the top-one for Rajasthani language given by Rajasthan Governement official body. Krayon95 (talk) 15:02, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Also the sources are mostly in non english languages, there are enough reliable sources provided on the page, although a few are blogs and a couple of exam preparation books which I removed for being not reliable, the rest look pretty good. Since the award is given by the government, government websites are reliable for this, which is what are provided in it. On a cursory glance hindi sources looks good and reliable for such a topic. Even then if notability issue is raised then it can even be merged with Suryamal Misran. Sajaypal007 (talk) 07:11, 2 May 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. MBisanz talk 18:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Symbiosis Institute of Management Studies, Pune

Symbiosis Institute of Management Studies, Pune (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 would be fine in DRAFT space, but creator moved in despite @Hatchens:' decline, so we're here. There is no evidence that this school is notable. Incubate in draft space until such time as notability is established with independent, reliable sources. Star Mississippi 01:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The references come from internationally reputed Indian publications and are properly cited. Suggest Keep Vishal.Negi7 (talk) 08:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC) — Vishal.Negi7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete or Merge - An article should speak for itself and explain why the subject is notable, and this article does not, except as a branch of the university, which has its own article.
    • The originator appears to be trying to game the system by moving the draft into article space after it was rejected, without discussing with the reviewer.
    • The status of other business schools is irrelevant, as other stuff exists, a deprecated argument. (Nominate them for deletion also).

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Institute talks about being India's only higher education business school for defence personnel and their family, which speaks about why its notable (India has one pf the world's largest Defence force in place. Properly cited. Keep. Priyashi1599 (talk) 07:45, 15 April 2022 (UTC)— Priyashi1599 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems like an even split between deletion, merger and draftifying.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Several Indian central government leaders have given talks at the Institute including the defence minister, Road Transport minister and former Railways minister, seems quite notable . - Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.165.168.36 (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC) — 103.165.168.36 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • KeepThe institute definitely seems notable, though the article needs editing to meet MOS:LEAD guideline. I will be happy to edit if it says.--Trolli Onida (talk) 23:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Checkuser note: Pryi1499 and Vishal.Negi7 are sock puppets of Priyashi1599. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:50, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    shocked. Utterly shocked! I was waiting for a little more to file an SPI, so thanks for handling. Star Mississippi 22:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sources cited by AusLondonder do not, in my opinion, support the claim of significant independent coverage. The first was an interview with an administrator. The second read like a puff piece written entirely from the school's press release. Rockphed (talk) 23:41, 27 April 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! 04:12, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Total Linhas Aéreas Flight 5561

AfDs for this article:
Total Linhas Aéreas Flight 5561 (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)

Tragic but not notable cargo plane crash. Cargo plane accidents are quite common. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:16, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Based on my reading on the Portuguese article (that should be added to the English wiki) significant changes are being made after the result of the incident. For instance: including an emergency procedure regarding the triggering of the elevator trim, revising current technical publication of the aircraft, changing how the elevator trim for ATR aircraft is certified, and improving crew management. SunDawntalk 08:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I'm not sure why the fact that it was a cargo flight would make it less notable, and I question the notion implied by the proposer that cargo flight accidents are more common than passenger flight ones. The aircraft type involved is indeed far more commonly used as a passenger airliner, and any technical factor in any accident on the type would likely affect the entire fleet and the hundreds of thousands of passenger it transports. --Deeday-UK (talk) 10:49, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there should be no elevation of notability for passenger-carrying aircraft. An airliner was lost with all on board. Changes were made post-accident. Thus it meets our notability threshold. Mjroots (talk) 06:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Incident appears to have had a lasting impact as a result of the subsequent investigation and changes made NemesisAT (talk) 14:58, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lots of Keep votes but can this be reflected in article improvement?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:33, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Needing improvement is not a reason to delete an article via AfD. Mjroots (talk) 19:14, 25 April 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. Stifle (talk) 14:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Federal College of Horticultural Technology, Dadin Kowa

Federal College of Horticultural Technology, Dadin Kowa (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 is WP:ADMASQ 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - This is an article about a federal institution in Nigeria. The article has improved from when it was created and currently. If it still doesn't meet the criteria, kindly move to draft for further editing. Thank you! Olugold (talk) 16:39, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Celestina007 Do you think strongly of a drafting? Your vote should probably be draftify, if so. SoyokoAnis - talk | PLEASE PING 16:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This can easily be stubbed. Meets inclusion criteria as an higher institution of learning. Being a school in the Islamic dominated far North even make it kindoff significant as an entity.HandsomeBoy (talk) 13:03, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: it would help if those arguing to keep would cite a relevant policy so we could establish consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep An article is about a federal government own institution which passess WP:GNG. Atibrarian (talk) 20:29, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep! Obviously this has passed the GNG criteria, a tertiary institution of learning by a federal government and it's not for profit organisation. User:Em-mustapha talk 22:38, 18 April 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. Sandstein 05:13, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Technology brokering

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

It's possible this topic is notable but a BEFORE shows the term is the work of one author cited here and the article looks to have been stealth promotion of the company IDEO, see earlier revisions for even more content about them. Fails WP:GNG Slywriter (talk) 22:00, 29 March 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, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep although the article is of really poor quality. This is a business concept (undoubtedly unrelated to the company listed here). What seems to be the original publication naming this concept is:
  • Hargadon, A. and Sutton, R.I., 1997. Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. Administrative science quarterly, pp.716-749.
which has nearly 4000 cites on Google Scholar. There are many other publications by Hargadon that expound on the concept, but also ones by others:
  • Laudone, R., Liguori, E.W., Muldoon, J. and Bendickson, J., 2015. Technology brokering in action: revolutionizing the skiing and tennis industries. Journal of Management History.
  • Dell'Era, C. and Verganti, R., 2013. Relational strategies to connect technology and design: technology brokering and mediating. International Journal of Technology Intelligence and Planning, 9(1), pp.10-25.
etc. You can see it has become a business buzzword: IBO, Huffpost, a book. Lamona (talk) 03:09, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last relist, with the hopes of some additional participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, although it may well have started as a stealth promotion it has now been cleaned up and Lamona has demonstrated notability. SailingInABathTub (talk) 23:24, 20 April 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! 01:28, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mindware Studios

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP. Could not locate coverage online to establish notability outside of passing mentions. -Liancetalk/contribs 00:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not much can be said about a short-lived studio that made three non-significant games. -Vipz (talk) 07:30, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable and only made 3 games. Gabe114 (talk) 12:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A quick GSearch shows they had planned on releasing a new game in March 2021, not sure how notable that makes them, they still seem to be around. Oaktree b (talk) 20:23, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here is a short profile on page 11 in the publication about creative industry published by subsidiary of the Czech Ministry of Culture. Independent reliable secondary source, but minor coverage.--Jklamo (talk) 13:48, 19 April 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! 01:26, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative Games

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP. Could not locate any coverage online to indicate notability. -Liancetalk/contribs 00:48, 13 April 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 Linux Game Publishing. Liz Read! Talk! 04:10, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grapple (network layer)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Lacks coverage in independent sources. Could not locate any sources outside of wiki mirrors on Google. -Liancetalk/contribs 00:45, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you check duckduckgo?
https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MjAyMQ Rlink2 (talk) 17:54, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:26, 20 April 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_April_13&oldid=1082478812"